Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Debate between Richard Foord and Jerome Mayhew

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be the last Back-Bench contributor. I actually mean that, because unlike some debates which we have all been in, this one has been characterised by knowledge and a really serious approach to the subject in hand. I have learned a lot, and I am grateful for many of the contributions made.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made quite a good point when he said that he was surprised there were not more people in the Chamber to take part in the debate. Perhaps one of the reasons why the Chamber is relatively sparsely populated is that this feels like old news. It is easy to lose the sense of wonder and shock at the seriousness of the allegations that led to the Humble Address.

It is old news that Peter Mandelson was grossly unfit for public office—we have known that for decades. Tony Blair knew it, because he sacked him for dishonesty not once but twice. We have known for years that Peter Mandelson was a byword for double-dealing—after all, his nickname was the Prince of Darkness, and that did not come from nowhere. We have known for years, unfortunately, of his continued friendship with his best pal, Mr Epstein—that they were such close friends, and that Mandelson was so on Epstein’s side that he stayed in Epstein’s house even when Epstein was in prison for child sexual offences. We say that too often without stopping to realise what it actually means. It is an extraordinary statement. We knew that. The Prime Minister appointed Mandelson despite knowing those things and despite having advice on vetting from his then Cabinet Secretary. He ignored that advice. This, of course, is the Prime Minister who famously said that he was going to put “country before party”. On this occasion, he appeared to put party before national security. It is pretty serious.

Some months ago, we had the unedifying spectacle of the Government attempting through obfuscation to cover up this scandal. They whipped their Back Benchers to vote down the release of relevant documents, which was such a grubby move that it fomented such revolt among Labour Members that the Government were forced into a climbdown.

Then there were not one but two stolen phones. I accept that perhaps that happened, but there were also no messages from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no messages from the Deputy Prime Minister—although we know that no one tells him anything, so perhaps we have not missed anything there—and no messages from the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, either. We also had the use of disappearing messages, with no record kept by the Prime Minister, in direct contradiction of Cabinet Office guidance for the retention of records. All that was found out drip by drip, one painful and damning piece of evidence after another, as a result of the Conservative-led Humble Address.

Yet we are still not at the end. It is clear from the documents that have been released that there are obvious continuing gaps in disclosure. Messages have been leaked to the press, including The Guardian and The Spectator, which are not included in the release to Parliament, even though they were ordered to be. The Intelligence and Security Committee—an organisation of eminent Members of the House from across the parties—has given its opinion that the Government are interpreting exclusion of material on the grounds of prejudice to national security or international relations “far too broadly”.

I am sorry to say this, but it feels that the Government are still at it, because they are withholding documents. We have talked a lot about the vetting file. If that file is too difficult to disclose, at least its conclusions should be shared with the ISC, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) suggested. It is important that the Government have no legal authority to take decisions not to disclose. As the Intelligence and Security Committee said,

“while Government may believe that there is good reason to withhold certain documents, it does not currently have the authority to so do.”

It is not for officials to decide what is released to Parliament; Parliament decides. If the instruction—a direction from the high court of Parliament to officials—is thought by officials to be too widely framed, it is the responsibility of Ministers to come to this House and persuade Parliament to change its mind. They have not done so.

One of the things that really worries me about this Administration is that officials appear to think that they can decide what is and is not supplied to Parliament. That undermines the administration of this country by democracy. Parliament is where decisions are taken; we are the people who decide what authority is granted to the Executive. For officials to then decide, perhaps for good reason, that they will not comply with the direction of the high court of Parliament undermines our entire democratic process. They do not have the legal authority to make that decision. It is for the Government to stand up for Parliament, and if they think that Parliament has made too wide a direction, they must come and persuade us of that, and they will no doubt get a vote to correct it.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The hon. Member will recall that the Conservative Humble Address motion required the sharing of all communications

“between ministers and Lord Mandelson, in the six months prior to his appointment”,

and all communications among

“ministers, Government officials and special advisers during his time as Ambassador”.

That was a hugely broad scope. Does the hon. Member think that when the Government amended that and proposed to exclude any of those things subject or prejudicial to national security and international relations, they were serious in wanting all that information to be shared with the ISC? Or does he think that the Government were trying to be too smart and too clever by half, suggesting that His Majesty’s Opposition were acting against national security and international relations?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I would never accuse the Government of being too clever by half, and I am unable to put myself in their heads. However, I hear the hon. Member’s concern.

We have this drip, drip, drip: the failed cover-up, the partial disclosure, the embarrassing exposures and the continued unauthorised retention. When will the Government realise that this is not going to stop and that this painful, weeping sore will remain open until they finally deliver what the Humble Address requires of them?