Lord Mandelson

Wendy Morton Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Yes, I have read the letter—I am afraid I did not have it at my fingertips—but I think it is important to put all this information before the House.

The next question is, what does “vetting” mean? I appreciate that there are other processes that we cannot go into here, and it would not be appropriate to do so, but I hope it will be of help to the House to share another answer from the Foreign Affairs Committee session. In question 269, I said:

“The foundation of it seems to be that they have a form to fill in, you take it in good faith that they are filling that in correctly, and then you check what it is that they have said, so if they have omitted anything, no one is looking outside what is on the form.”

Sir Oliver Robbins then said:

“That is broadly correct, yes.”

That is vetting.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I will touch on vetting in my contribution later, but as someone who was vetted by the Foreign Office many years ago, I would like to seek clarity as to whether Peter Mandelson went through the full vetting process that a normal member of the diplomatic service would undergo ahead of taking up such a post, or did he simply undergo what is known in political terms—in Chief Whip terms—as the “pet process” undertaken by the Cabinet Office, because full vetting takes a long time?

[Emily Thornberry]

I understand what the right hon. Lady is saying. Obviously, I do not know. All I can do to help the House is point out that when it was announced in mid-December that Lord Mandelson would be the ambassador, pressure was being applied to make sure that we were all clear that he was going to be the ambassador in time for the swearing in of the President a month later. The Committee did everything that we could to try to get to the bottom of how many questions were asked and what the questions were, and we all did our utmost to try to get to the truth of this. If Members read the transcript, they will see that we were not “mandarined”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

I think some Labour Members do get it, which is why we are seeing furious activity with the usual channels at the moment. I think there is a whole movement of those Members who are not going to be willing to support the Government in voting for their own amendment today. I think some of them get it, and the rest of them need to catch up quickly. Those first movers who spoke out and were clear that they were not going to support it will be able to hold their heads up high.

Let us also be clear about Mandelson’s disrespect for this House. We have heard from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She has now left the Chamber, but I will refer to her remarks. She gave a pretty poor account of why she wholeheartedly endorsed his appointment. As Chair of that Committee, she is supposed to be independent and to act on behalf of the House. She was happy to explain all the reasons why she felt that the vetting was not complete and the processes were not up to scratch. Why, then, did she not say at the time that this person should not have been appointed? We know that other members of the Committee said the same thing, and they were similarly thrown under the bus by the Chair of the Committee, who endorsed the appointment. I think that is also a disrespect to this House.

[Wendy Morton]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this boils down to judgment, whether it is the Prime Minister’s or that of others on the Government Benches? So much was known about Peter Mandelson even before he was appointed. Surely someone should have got their head out of the sand and said, “Hang on, folks. This isn’t right.”

[Dr Mullan]

As I said, both the Prime Minister and, as we understand it, his chief of staff decided that it was worth the risk. There was lots of distraction today at Prime Minister’s questions from a Prime Minister who did not want to accept that it was his judgment on the line, including on further police investigations, and on other things that Mandelson had done and things we did not know about. What we all knew, and what the Prime Minister knew, is that Peter Mandelson continued a friendship with a convicted paedophile when he made him the ambassador to the United States of America.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

Can we just reflect for a second? The original Humble Address was reckless. It was going to put information in the public domain that would have damaged our country. It could be argued that the original amendment was an overreaction to that, but we are getting to a good place now; we are reaching consensus.

[Wendy Morton]

All things being equal, would the hon. Gentleman have gone through the Aye Lobby or the No Lobby if a Division was called on the motion?

[Dr Arthur]

I had complete confidence that the Minister would reach consensus in the House today. Seriously though, would Opposition Members have voted for their own motion, which would have put sensitive information into the public domain? I really doubt it. I think better of them than that.

[Wendy Morton]

I think our motion was and is very clear, and we know how evidence and information are brought forward when it comes to the ISC. My question was very clear: would the hon. Gentleman have voted with us on the motion, or against it?

[Dr Arthur]

Mr Speaker, I am trying to sit down. I will do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

At the start of this afternoon, I sat through Prime Minister’s questions and did not really have any intention of taking part in this Opposition day debate. I quite often take part in what we call Oppo day debates, but I had other commitments in the diary. [Interruption.] This is not a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was asked to speak, was I not? Officials are looking at me rather perplexed.

I had no intention of speaking in this debate. I sat through Prime Minister’s questions and listened to the Leader of the Opposition asking the Prime Minister direct questions. With each question that went by, it became clear that there were many questions that were not being answered and that the Government were attempting simply to sweep this issue to the side, and to deflect to other matters around the periphery.

First, let me come to the Humble Address. I have not been in this place as long as some of my vintage colleagues—I say that in a very kind way—but I have a few scars to bear from my time as Chief Whip. [Interruption.] I never lost a vote, mind. The reason that I make that point is that I, like others in this place, know the significance of a Humble Address. A Humble Address is not used on a normal Opposition day debate. It is not used regularly and it is not used lightly. It is used to indicate that this is a very serious matter that we have brought to this House today. Initially, there were to be two debates, but because of the demand from those on the Opposition Benches to have the issue debated and discussed, the usual channels agreed to allow the debate to take all afternoon. Most scrutiny has come from Conservative Members, but I pay tribute to those on the Government Benches who have had the decency to explain to their Front-Bench team how they feel about this important matter.

We heard earlier about the issue of national security. In opposition, when the Prime Minister was shadow Brexit Secretary back in 2018—I remember those days well—he proposed three separate Humble Addresses, and none of them included exemptions for national security. There was a suggestion that we got this wrong, but that is just not the case at all.

I am pleased that the Government have listened, yet again, to their Back Benchers and brought forward a manuscript amendment, but were it not for Members on both the Opposition and Government Benches pushing them to do so, I do not think we would be in this position now.

[Joe Robertson]

Is it not shocking that the Prime Minister not only appointed Peter Mandelson knowing his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, but today has sought to deflect, cover up and table an amendment so as not to have to answer questions that he must now answer?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is just so right, and I will come to that point a little later.

The core of this debate is the fact that we want answers. There are huge questions about the judgment of the Prime Minister and his appointment of Mandelson. Members from both sides of the House have talked a lot about the victims, and it is right that they have, but if we are to stand up for the victims and for the people who put us here—we should never forget that we were sent to this place—we need to ask the questions, and we deserve the answers. Opposition Members will continue to keep asking those questions, because that is what the public and the victims deserve. They deserve transparency and accountability.

Earlier I made an intervention about the vetting process. I am not an expert on this at all, but it does seem strange to me that, arguably, Peter Mandelson did not appear to have been fully vetted—instead going through some strange checking process involving one piece of paper.

[Bradley Thomas]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public are sick and tired of people who appear to fail upwards in public life, simply for the reason that they appear to move in the right circles?

[Wendy Morton]

Absolutely.

I will share something with the House today. I never set out to be a politician. I never in a million years expected to sit on these green Benches, but I did it to stand up for my local community, because I felt that they needed a voice. I might not get everything right—none of us do—but one thing I will do is strive to be a voice for those who put me in this place, and let us never forget that we were put here by others.

Turning back to vetting, I would like the Minister to explain to us whether Peter Mandelson went through the exact same vetting process that a normal diplomat would have gone through if they were to take up the post in Washington. The role of UK ambassador to the US is one of the most important roles in our Foreign Office.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

To my right hon. Friend’s question about vetting, can she foresee a circumstance where a professional diplomat would be given clearance if they had sold passports and taken undeclared loans?

[Wendy Morton]

My right hon. Friend makes a really important. This is about probity and evidence and making sure, for the reputation of this country, that we are appointing the right people. I should declare that I once was a member of the diplomatic service, and I know that the people who serve our country as diplomats are of the highest integrity, and they have my trust. When it comes to making political appointments, as today’s debate has shown, there are still questions that need to be asked.

The other thing that is rather strange is that everyone seemed to know that there were questions around Peter Mandelson. There were questions about the sort of person he was—I think he was once featured on “Spitting Image” as the Prince of Darkness—but where was the Prime Minister, and where was his judgment? Was his head stuck in the sand? We Conservative Members are aware that the Prime Minister had been glowing about the talents of Peter Mandelson. Only in February, he said at the British embassy in Washington:

“Peter is the right person to help us work with President Trump and to take the special relationship from strength to strength”.

We are aware that Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, pushed for Mandelson to become ambassador, sidelining long-serving experienced diplomats. We are aware that Keir Starmer assured MPs that “full due process” was followed—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Will the hon. Lady make sure that she refers to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister, please?

[Wendy Morton]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was getting a bit carried away there.

The Prime Minister assured MPs that “full due process” was followed in his appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador. He appointed Peter Mandelson despite it already being in the public domain that Peter Mandelson had discussed issues relevant to his ministerial position with Jeffrey Epstein while Epstein was in jail. I could go on. Why did the Prime Minister choose to ignore all that, at a time when Members on both sides of the House know that the public are often scathing about politicians? They say that we are all the same, but I can assure them that we are not. They question our motives and our integrity. Some even refer to Members of this place as members of the establishment, which is something that I will always rail against. [Laughter.] No, no, I can absolutely see why they might say that. [Interruption.] Labour Members may mock, but the point is about integrity.

[Saqib Bhatti]

My right hon. Friend is making a serious and important point. She has talked about how she ended up in this place, and I do not think anyone should denigrate all the hard work she has done to achieve what she has.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but you just get used to that sort of thing when you have been here for a while.

We should never forget the people outside. We should never forget the Nolan principles. Conservative Members have explained the Nolan principles and their importance, which was perhaps needed by certain Labour Members. I urge the Government to do the right thing.

[Harriet Cross]

My right hon. Friend rightly talks about trust in politics and in politicians, but the issue is that the Prime Minister put so much blind trust in a proven liar that he was willing to forgo process and judgment when appointing him to one of the top diplomatic roles in the country. Why does my right hon. Friend think that the Prime Minister showed such a lack of judgment and such misplaced trust that it has caused this country to be a laughing stock on the international stage?

[Wendy Morton]

That is exactly the point. I do not think it is for me to answer those questions; it is for the Prime Minister to do so, but I will continue to question his judgment. How on earth did he come to appoint Peter Mandelson to this role? It is not just Conservative Members who are asking that; today, we have heard Labour Members asking questions. The Government Benches are quite full now, but the Conservatives led the charge on this topic. In Opposition day debates, I expect to see the Government Benches full, and I expect Labour Members to take points up, debate with us, and defend the position of their Government. How much have we seen of that today? Very little indeed.

[Bradley Thomas]

Aside from the evident, persistent and consistent failures in the Prime Minister’s integrity, does this issue not raise massive questions about the hold over the Government and those at the top of the Labour party by someone whose name has been a byword for sleaze for the last two or three decades?

[Wendy Morton]

It absolutely beggars belief. If we want to clean up politics, this sort of thing should not be allowed to happen. We know that politics are difficult, but this was down to the judgment of one person—or was it the judgment of others around that person? I urge Labour Members to do the right thing this evening and stand up for democracy, Parliament and decency.