Ambassador to the United States

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We have a substantial speaking list and this debate is time-limited to three hours, so Back Benchers are on a six-minute speaking limit. I call John Slinger.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger]

I will not give way. I am coming to the conclusion of my remarks.

The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) spoke somewhat mockingly of the strange coincidences of politics, given the presentation of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill earlier today. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a man of integrity. He has shown that he believes in accountability and he acts on it. The Leader of the Opposition can reel off a list of Ministers who have been sacked, but that rather proves my point. Frankly, this is a welcome change and no matter how uncomfortable recent events have been, we are seeing, under this Prime Minister, that public officials, Ministers and yes, ambassadors are being held to higher standards than previously, and I welcome that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Colleagues—there are children in the Gallery. Let us keep our language tempered and ensure that we are being moderate in everything we say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I assume that everyone who is bobbing wishes to contribute—there seems to be a lot of movement in the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The reality is that the Prime Minister personally decided to appoint Lord Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States, and in so doing, he has humiliated and embarrassed this nation on the international stage, because Lord Mandelson is someone who described himself as the “best pal” of a paedophile and advised that paedophile to use his time in prison as “an opportunity”—truly shocking.

There are two separate issues that require proper examination: first, the judgment of the Prime Minister, and secondly, whether he inadvertently misled the House last Wednesday in responding to the Leader of the Opposition. Let us look at the judgment of the Prime Minister. We know now that as he made the personal decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, he received a two-page document outlining some of his links to the paedophile, and yet he carried on with that decision to appoint him. He made the appointment in that knowledge. That is woefully incompetent judgment.

Last week, in the knowledge that there was a cache of emails about Lord Mandelson’s links to this paedophile, the Prime Minister made the judgment—as a lawyer who supposedly is forensic—not to ask the questions about what was in the emails. That seems to me an absolute failure of judgment. He then made the judgment to come to this House and say he had confidence in the man about whom he knew there was a cache of emails that he thought it inappropriate to ask the detail of. The whole point of lawyers and barristers is that they do due diligence, but no—not our Prime Minister.

That brings me to the critical issue of whether the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House. He said two things to the Leader of the Opposition. First, he said twice that he had “confidence in” Lord Mandelson, and yet he knew the day before about a cache of emails, which he did not want to know the detail of, on Lord Mandelson’s links to Epstein. The day after, the Prime Minister fired Lord Mandelson. Is it credible to believe that one can have confidence in a man, given those two facts that came about within a 24-hour period?

Secondly, even more significantly, the Prime Minister said that “full due process” had been “followed during this appointment”. We now learn that that is not the case, because the due process was carried out after the decision by the Prime Minister to appoint Lord Mandelson and after it had been announced to the world at large. Those two things cannot be true. Either full due process was carried out before the decision to appoint, or it was carried out afterwards—it was not carried out “during”.

For that reason, regrettably, I conclude personally that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House of Commons and the British people. Therefore, the Prime Minister needs to come to the House and give absolute clarity on what he knew and when, why he made those decisions, and why he chose not to ask for detailed forensic investigations at the appropriate time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I remind Members to temper their speeches. We do not, at any point, accuse other Members of dishonesty. I know that the next Member to speak will get that right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. Colleagues who have spoken should be making their way back to the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I will make a little more progress and then will happily give way.

To return to the fundamental question that has been asked by many Members, as I said at the start, in the light of new information, the Prime Minister made the decision to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. The Prime Minister took decisive action on these issues, and now the Government’s focus is seizing the opportunities of our US partnership as we look forward to the next phase of government, moving from fixing the foundations to driving forward growth and national renewal.

A lot of Members asked sensible questions about the relationship with the United States, our economy, our security and the state visit that is happening this week. I point the House to the fact that last week we secured and announced a £400 million contract with Google Cloud, boosting secure communications between the UK and US and building new intelligence capabilities for the UK armed forces. On Sunday, we announced more than £1.2 billion of private US investment in the UK’s world-leading financial services sector, and that new investment will create 1,800 new jobs across the UK and boost benefits for millions of customers. [Interruption.] Just yesterday, we announced a new UK-US partnership on civil nuclear power as part of our drive to put billions of pounds of private investment into clean energy, and I look forward to further announcements over the coming days.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I can barely hear the Minister speak.

[Stephen Doughty]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have taken a number of interventions, and I do want to make some progress.

Hon. and right hon. Members have asked about the US-UK relationship. I can tell them that it is strong, thriving and growing. The steps that I have mentioned will ensure that our two nations continue to lead the world in innovation. We have trade worth more than £315 billion last year, and the US and UK economies are inextricably linked. Through the state visit, we will take that relationship even further, making trade and investment deals that will benefit hard-working families across these countries and regions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Is it really a point of order?

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

It is. Am I mistaken in my belief that there is a convention in the House that when the Leader of the Opposition puts their hand on the Dispatch Box and seeks to intervene, the Minister gives way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is not a matter for the Chair. It is entirely up to the Minister if he wishes to give way or not.

[Stephen Doughty]

I was making an important point about the scrutiny of Jeffrey Epstein conducted by BBC’s “Newsnight”; such serious questions might have been asked of Lord Mandelson, but to my recollection none were. [Interruption.] Indeed, I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition wants to intervene, because I have a question for her. She and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as well as other Opposition Members, have raised questions today, but did they say a word in this House about Lord Mandelson’s appointment before last Wednesday? I do not have any record of that. In fact, the record shows that they did not raise it and they did not ask questions. The reality is that in the light of new information, the Prime Minister has acted decisively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I hope it is a proper point of order.

[Dr Evans]

I would hate for the Minister to mislead the House inadvertently, because I raised the examples earlier of Sky News and of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who raised concerns about Mr Mandelson. Even in this debate, we heard evidence of what the Opposition have been doing, including talking about the inappropriateness of this ambassador back in May.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have heard enough. That is not a point of order.

[Stephen Doughty]

I was referring to whether this matter had been raised in the House by the Leader of the Opposition and others.

The Prime Minister acted decisively in response to the new information, which is exactly what should have happened. The former ambassador has been withdrawn. The Prime Minister and the Government are focused on deepening our special relationship with the United States in the interests of people across the Atlantic for jobs, growth, prosperity, security and our defence. That relationship with the United States is a relationship that has endured, is enduring, and will endure for the prosperity and security of our peoples well into the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call David Davis to wind up the debate.