Lord Mandelson

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who participates a lot more frequently than I do in Opposition day debates. On the basis of the quality of the debate today, I should come along more often.

The immediate background to this issue is the ghastly behaviour of Epstein, the sexual abuse, the child trafficking and all that goes with it. I asked the question the other day as to whether that sexual trafficking might involve not just women and girls but young men. That is unresolved at the moment, but perhaps we will find out more in due course.

I wish to focus my remarks on the period going back to 1997—I know that is long before you were able to recall much about politics, Madam Deputy Speaker. That was when Mandelson was first appointed by Tony Blair as the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the millennium dome. The reason I recall all that is because there was a time when I was the shadow Minister for the millennium dome and also, for that matter, for the millennium bug.

I recall well the way in which Mandelson enjoyed the opportunity to promote the grandiose new Labour scheme of the dome, which was to be the fourth largest enclosed space in the world. In the end, it cost £750 million and the number of visitors who attended the dome in 2000 was half what had been estimated. Mandelson was really proud of this, because it had a link with his grandfather, who must be turning in his grave. Herbert Morrison was a great public servant, and his grandson has betrayed public service in an enormous way.

Herbert Morrison was involved with the Festival of Britain, and Mandelson thought that by being responsible for and promoting the millennium dome, he would in a sense emulate the great efforts of his grandfather. The project proceeded, and it was costing an enormous amount more than had been forecast by the Treasury or expected. Mandelson was in the business of looking for sponsorship for the dome, and he used agents, particularly Keith Vaz, who used to be a Member of this House but left in disgrace, and the Hindujas, to get some extra income for his dome project.

The Hindujas offered £1 million for a faith centre inside the dome, but that did not happen by chance; it was linked to the fact that back in 1990, the Hinduja brothers had applied for British citizenship and been rejected. In 1998, under the New Labour Government, they saw an opportunity to rectify that and get their citizenship. What did they do? They engaged Keith Vaz. Through him, there was a relationship with Mandelson, and the £1 million towards the dome was forthcoming. In return, there was an acceleration of the passport application by Srichand Hinduja. He applied in the middle of ’98, his application was granted in January 1999, and his brothers’ passports arrived not long after that. There was an enormous amount of suspicion around that, and I remember, as shadow Minister for the dome, getting a good story on the front page of The Sunday Times, linking Hinduja with Mandelson and the money for the dome. I went off thinking I would be able to do the usual rounds, but the whole story was closed down by Alastair Campbell and Mandelson, who said it was a whole load of rot and that there was no truth in it whatsoever.

At the time, Mandelson denied that he had any dealings with the Home Office on behalf of the Hindujas, but subsequently, there seemed to be evidence that there had been dealings. We should bear this in mind: an inquiry was set up into whether there had been dealings between the Secretary of State and the Hindujas. Sir Anthony Hammond, a distinguished retired civil servant—I think he had been in charge of the Home Office and had been Treasury Solicitor—was asked to produce a report, which he did in 2001. That report totally exculpated Mr Vaz and Mandelson.

A few weeks after that complete exoneration, more papers were discovered, amazingly. The inquiry by Sir Anthony Hammond was reopened, which was quite an unusual event. On looking at the extra papers that had been hidden away, he discovered that there had in fact been dealings between Mandelson and Michael O’Brien, a very distinguished and honourable Labour Member who served at the time in the Home Office. Mandelson consistently lied, covered up, and behaved in a way that is totally unacceptable, and that was all that time ago in 2002, when Sir Anthony Hammond’s revised report was produced.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is giving a historical perspective, which I am sure we all appreciate. It seems that Mr Mandelson is a serial liar. Does the hon. Member agree that the Prime Minister said this morning that Mr Mandelson lied, lied and lied to him? Who in this House has never been lied to?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I do not know how much credibility the hon. Gentleman has given to people whom he knows to be serial liars in his professional life. That is the issue. If the Prime Minister was on an interview panel—in a sense, he was; he was interviewing his close friend for a job—he must have known that he was talking to a serial liar.

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I have to refute in the strongest possible terms any accusation that the Government would seek to interfere in, or block, any investigation in relation to Jeffrey Epstein. It is absolutely wrong to suggest that documents would be made unavailable or deleted. The Cabinet Secretary is today reviewing the Government archives from the time in question, and as I have said, he will comply with any investigation that takes place. The right hon. Gentleman must know that accusing me or other parts of Government of misdemeanour in such a way is wholly unsatisfactory and—might I say—out of character.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I can recall the description of the scorpion in the jam jar. Mandelson surely has some sort of self-destruct chip inside his head. It was reported in The Times this afternoon that Mr Butler, the Downing Street adviser to Gordon Brown, said that the memo containing highly sensitive market information allegedly leaked by Mandelson presented an unimaginable breach of trust. Does the Minister agree that this looks like political insider trading on a grand scale, and would he support not only an independent inquiry, but a criminal investigation?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that releasing Government information in and of itself, let alone for personal or commercial gain, is wrong and a breach of rules that we all must comply with. If that is what happened, there should be appropriate investigations and consequences for that behaviour.

Call for General Election

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Edward, for allowing me to speak on behalf of the 1,892 people in my constituency who have signed this petition. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for expounding why this is an important debate. I am in my fifth Parliament now, and I do not recall the Petitions Committee having to call as many debates on calling another general election in any other Parliament. This debate follows last January’s, when 3 million people had signed the petition. Why are we seeing this appetite among our constituents to re-litigate the general election of 2024 so soon after it happened?

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I believe I just heard the hon. Member say that there had been a petition with 3 million signatures last year and one with 1 million signatures this year. If that is correct, does that mean that the number of people calling for an election has fallen by two thirds?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

That is probably 4 million people who have, in that length of time, signed the petition. I encourage the hon. Member to dream on.

Why have we seen the robust signing of these petitions over the past two years? It boils down to the fundamental principle of our democracy, which is based around peoples’ manifestoes. We need to rely on political parties to set out a direction of travel in their manifesto and then to try to deliver it. The problem that has led to all these signatures is to do with not having been told in the manifesto about the Government’s plans for change.

I could go on for the whole of this debate about the tax changes alone because we were told in the general election that if they were to win, the Government had no plans to raise taxes beyond what was outlined in their manifesto. Within months, in the first Budget the Chancellor raised taxes by an astonishing £40 billion a year for the duration of this Parliament and public spending by a further £30 billion. In total, that is a £70 billion a year increase in public spending—something that was deliberately not stated during the general election campaign.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. It is lovely to see so many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—that is unusual in a Westminster Hall debate.

I am a new politician, but I like elections. I like them very much, especially if I can talk about the health service. I like talking about hospitals, about our plans for our hospitals, about getting the waiting lists down and about our plans for neighbourhood health centres and for revolutionising the IT. I also talk up research. However, I do not think that now is the right time for a general election because, as the Health Secretary is fond of saying, although much has been done, there is much still to do. I am sure that we will see great changes as we bring the public with us and renew the NHS, as is our sacred duty.

I am an optimist, unlike the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). Some will say that we are U-turners, but I say that we are a Government who listen—we listen. We listen to my constituent, Roxane Marjoram of The One Bull, Bury St Edmunds, who met the Chancellor of the Exchequer and then wrote her a personal letter about the difficulties of the rates revaluation for pubs. I understand that we will see some reversal of that revaluation. Just a few minutes ago, in the Lobby, I met farmers from Suffolk who told me they were so happy with what the Prime Minister had said about increasing the threshold for the inheritance tax. This is a Government who listen.

Some Opposition Members have been critical of the Prime Minister. They say that he perhaps lacks vision. I am not sure quite what they mean by that. I say that he is the right man at the right time. Mr Boris Johnson—hon. Members may remember him—was previously described as a man with the wrong set of talents for his particular crisis. Our Prime Minister is, I believe, exactly the opposite.

The situation of the world at the moment is as hazardous as any of us can recall. I met a man in a dinner jacket at a black tie dinner just a few weeks ago who told me that he is the chairman of a local Conservative association and that, given the way the world is at the moment, he believes that the Prime Minister is doing a brilliant job. I also believe that to be the case, so let us not have a general election right now. The hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Benches know very well that we must not have a general election.

Digital ID

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I think I am the first person to speak today who is a supporter of digital ID. However, I agree with many of the objections raised by some colleagues; they are reasonable arguments and echo what many of my constituents have told me. Simon from Stowmarket wrote to say that he is worried about the state using digital ID to micromanage people’s lives, John from Bury St Edmunds said that digital ID could exclude those without smartphones or a fixed address, and there are many more who are concerned about the security of their data.

[Martin Wrigley]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Prinsley]

I will not just now.

I agree with all those arguments, but why do I support digital ID? Because I believe that those arguments are about the practicalities of how we implement digital ID, as opposed to the principle of whether we should have digital ID in the first place.

It should be entirely possible for a great country like ours to modernise the way in which its citizens interact with the state while preserving civil liberties and privacy. That is entirely the Government’s intention. No one will be stopped in the street and asked for digital ID, data will be stored on personal devices, and it will the individual’s decision to share it or not. There will be alternative routes for those who cannot use smartphones.

Nevertheless, I know some Members will think this is a slippery slope, but that, again, is a practical argument. It is up to us, as legislators and as a Government, to ensure that digital ID is implemented with safeguards against bureaucratic creep. But we should not forgo the incredible benefits of digital ID because of the hypothetical chance that something we are against, and that we can prevent, might happen.

The benefits would be incredible. Before entering this place, I was a surgeon for many years, and the biggest problem I faced on a daily basis was accessing basic information about patients, which is stored in piecemeal fashion across myriad organisations. We could use digital ID to create a unified record and give control of it to the patients. That would revolutionise the national health service, and that is just one potential use—I have not mentioned the benefits for other public services and in reducing illegal working. People say that this is hugely expensive; I say that digital ID would pay for itself through reduced fraud. Privacy, inclusivity, civil liberties and a modern, streamlined state—I believe in all those things.

China Spying Case

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying, but can we be informed how MPs today are to be further protected from foreign intelligence services?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is 100% correct, and that is a huge priority for the Government; it is a very serious issue. As I said when I opened this debate, it is not just about the position of the Government; I say as a parliamentarian that we in this place have to be protected from foreign interference.

The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked about the meeting on 1 September. We heard about that yesterday from the Cabinet Secretary and the deputy National Security Adviser, who both attended that meeting: it was a discussion about the bilateral relationship between the UK and China in the context of the case. The Cabinet Secretary made it clear yesterday that the meeting was entirely appropriate; no discussion of evidence took place, and everyone involved was participating on the assumption that the case was going to go ahead.

It was only on 3 September—as was confirmed by him in his evidence to the JCNSS yesterday—that the Director of Public Prosecutions informed the Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA of his intention, subject to confirmation, that the CPS would not be putting forward evidence at trial. The Attorney General was informed on the same day.

It is important that I finish this point, because I have been challenged on the chronology and I am only too delighted to enlighten the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The DPP confirmed to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that the position was agreed after a period of internal decision making within the CPS in the run-up to the meeting on 3 September. At that meeting, the DPP made it clear that the facts must not be briefed out further, with the exception of informing the NSA and the permanent secretary at the FCDO. The Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA therefore did not inform anyone else until shortly before the case became public. On 9 September, the CPS confirmed the decision to offer no evidence to the DNSA. That is the chronology.

Let me now directly address what the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, because I am conscious of the time. There is already an established mechanism for Parliament to address this issue. The Government are fully co-operating with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy inquiry and the ISC, and will provide evidence and appear before the Committee in the usual way.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Sewards]

More than 20 positions are available already and, as time goes on, more will become available. It will be up to the Leader of the Opposition to make that decision.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party manifesto stated clearly that we will abolish hereditary peers? Were we not to do so, the people of this country would simply be bewildered.

[Mark Sewards]

My hon. Friend made the point extremely well. I have had to deal with this on a number of issues, including introducing VAT on private schools, for example, where Members came to this place, argued the point and said that we had no right to do it—yet it was in our manifesto, so we have a moral obligation to pass this legislation. I hope that Opposition Members will join us in the lobbies as we do so. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) chunters from a sedentary position, but I am more than happy to take an intervention, if he wishes to make one.

G7 and NATO Summits

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We made the commitment to that capability, and we are now talking to allies about precisely what the timetable will be; I will update the House. The important thing is that the commitment is there. It is a commitment to the NATO initiative, and it brings us within that initiative. Therefore, there are a lot of moving parts, but we have made a very firm commitment, and I will set out the timeline and progress on that in due course.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

F-35As—hard power; BBC World Service—soft power. Does the Prime Minister agree that the World Service is a crucial element of our soft convening power?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. I have long been a supporter of the BBC World Service. My hon. Friend’s question chimes with other questions about the soft power of this country. We have incredible soft power and incredible strength in our diplomacy, and that very often achieves results in a way that then makes it less necessary to use the hard power.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Hopefully Lancashire will help with that with the new centre at Samlesbury.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

3. What progress he has made on joining up government.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)]

We have been clear from the outset that we want to govern in a joined-up way, though as we all know the DNA in the departmental system is strong and has lasted a long time. Delivering our plan for change will require Departments to work together, whether that is to build more houses, give children the best start in life—today we announced access to free school meals for children of people on universal credit—or to protect the country against crime and security threats. It is very important that these are not goals of Departments but of the Government, and that is why we work together to achieve them.

[Peter Prinsley]

I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket is privileged to host thousands of servicemen and servicewomen from RAF Honington, RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall. They play a crucial part in the lives of our towns and villages. Can the Minister assure me that the Ministry of Defence is working with other Departments to ensure that places such as Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket will benefit from the announcements in the strategic defence review in the form of jobs, housing, investment and apprenticeships?

[Pat McFadden]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. When the Prime Minister announced the strategic defence review a few days ago, he was clear that the uplift that has been approved by the Government in defence spending is a matter not just of the Ministry of Defence budget, but of industrial policy and skills policy. For example, we have announced an extra £1.5 billion for munitions over the next five years, creating six new munitions factories and over 1,000 jobs. It is really important that these investments are of benefit to different parts of the country as we make the necessary investments to improve our defence and national security in response to a changing world.

EU Trading Relationship

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Yesterday, I visited Hinkley Point C, the largest building site in Europe, an international project built through close co-operation with European partners, and a powerful example of how trade and co-operation with Europe is essential to our success. “Big Carl” was at work. The largest crane in the world, manufactured by Sarens in Belgium and imported to Britain because it is the only crane capable of doing the job, Big Carl is just one example of why a smooth trading relationship is essential. British businesses thrive by selling into the European market and rely on importing specialised goods that only Europe provides.

Back home, in Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, we can see how vital the relationship is. We have one of the largest centres for paint and coating production in the country. PPG Industries runs a major manufacturing facility in Stowmarket with 350 people, mixing paints and coatings shipped around the world, and AkzoNobel, a Dutch paint company, employs 150 people. Those two companies have nearly 500 people out of the industry’s national workforce of 1,400, and they are deeply entwined with the EU. Under the previous Government, they faced sharp increases in costs due to the barriers, they have had to contend with diverging chemical rules, and they face logistical headaches when importing raw materials. But these are large companies; imagine how much harder it is for small businesses.

Beautiful Beers specialises in selling fantastic Belgian beers imported from the continent. Its owner, René, faces a bureaucratic nightmare. He is doing it alone and struggling. I have heard the same story from businesses all over the place. Since Brexit, getting goods through customs has become a major hurdle, which we need to sort out with UK-EU customs co-operation. The previous Government left businesses and the country in a mess and Bury St Edmunds in the worst possible situation, so I am really glad that this Government are beginning to sort things out.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Prinsley Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

My hon. Friend raises a key and important challenge. In every part of these islands, public services need both resources and reform given the Government�s inheritance back in July. The UK Health Secretary has set out ambitious plans to roll out new AI technologies, upgrade the NHS app and reform the healthcare system to bring down waiting lists. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met devolved Government Ministers to discuss public service reform, data sharing and harnessing work on public service reform across these islands.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

8. What steps he is taking to improve relations with the European Union.

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

A closer, more co-operative relationship with the EU is in the UK�s national interests as it will grow the economy, boost living standards, protect our borders and keep the UK safe. I am taking forward discussions with my EU counterpart Commissioner Maro� �ef?ovi?. The UK-EU leaders summit on 19 May will be an important opportunity to drive forward this agenda.

[Peter Prinsley]

Palmerston said that this country has no eternal allies and no perpetual enemies, only interests which are eternal and perpetual. Does the Minister agree that it is in our eternal interests for there to be security in Europe and a sovereign Ukraine? Will he congratulate the Prime Minister on his statesmanship and leadership at this dangerous moment?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Prime Minister on the careful and considered leadership he is showing at a time when we face a once-in-a-generation moment for the collective security of our country and our continent. We remain absolutely committed to securing a lasting peace in Ukraine. On 2 March, the Prime Minister hosted international leaders in London to discuss support for Ukraine. As he said,

�we will never choose between either side of the Atlantic�the past week has shown that that idea is totally unserious.��[Official Report, 3 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 25.]

We are stepping up on defence and security, and we know that Europe is stepping up, too.