PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Standards in Public Life - 9 February 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Last week, I came to the House in the wake of information released by the United States Department of Justice about the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I outlined the immediate steps that this Government took, including an initial review of material, which ultimately led to a referral to the Metropolitan police, and steps taken to modernise the disciplinary procedures to allow for the removal of peers who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute. I am here today to update the House on further action that the Government will take to rebuild trust in public life in the wake of the damaging revelations since my statement last week. [Interruption.] I will finish my statement first, if I may.

I am sure that the House will agree that issues of standards, while important in and of themselves, do not meet the scale of disgust that we all have when we see powerful, rich men misuse their positions to abuse women and girls. The procedural rules, and the rules that I will talk to the House about today, are important given what has been able to happen in the past, but we should start by recognising that our collective response requires wider changes in the culture and use of power, wherever it rests. This goes to the heart of who my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is. It is why he became a human rights lawyer in the first place, why he became Director of Public Prosecutions, why he changed the Crown Prosecution Service to be more victims-oriented, and why he became Prime Minister.

As I set out last week, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed disgusting crimes. The Epstein scandal is another awful example of a culture that did not value the lives, let alone the voices, of women and girls. The series and sequencing of events across the last week has made it clear to us all, rightly, that for too long, and too often, influential people in positions of power—overwhelmingly men—have been able to avoid proper and just scrutiny because of the perverse power structures that incentivise their belief that rules do not apply to them. [Interruption.] If I may say so, Members who are chuntering from the Conservative Benches, while I am talking about the victims of sexual abuse and the abuse of power, should know better and recognise that they should be quiet and listen when we are talking about victims and the justice that they deserve to seek.

Peter Mandelson’s disgraceful behaviour raises a number of questions about the ability of the current standards system to catch those few individuals who seek to break our rules. This damages all Members across the House. The vast majority of public servants, whether officials or elected Members, come to serve the public, not themselves. This House, and indeed this building, is full of people working hard, unsociable hours, and making significant personal sacrifices, in order to try to make a difference to people’s lives, to do what is best for their country, to fight for their communities, and to use their position in this place to give a voice to those whose voices are too often not heard. The issues associated with Peter Mandelson, however, show that we must go further to ensure that no one can ever again behave in this way.

Since entering government, we have delivered on our manifesto promises to strengthen the role of the independent adviser, and we have set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission, while also publishing Ministers’ interests, gifts and hospitality more frequently and reforming severance payments to ensure that they are proportionate and fair. This is significant and important reform after years of repeated ethics scandals under the last Administration. This includes restricting payments for Ministers leaving office following a serious breach of the ministerial code, and requiring repayment of severance for those found in breach of the business appointment rules. It is also why the Government have introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—a landmark piece of legislation to tackle injustice—so that when tragedy strikes, the state is called to account.

In response to the latest revelations in the past week, the Prime Minister has confirmed that the Government will bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages can be removed from disgraced peers and that Peter Mandelson will be removed from the list of Privy Councillors. We are changing the process for the relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles, so that in cases where the role requires access to highly classified material, the selected candidate must have passed through the requisite national security vetting process before such appointments are announced or confirmed.

However, we recognise that we need to go further. We will work with the newly established Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure that it achieves its aim of promoting the highest standards in public life. We will consider whether the current arrangements for the declaration and publication of financial interests for Ministers and senior Government officials are sufficient, and whether regular published financial disclosure forms or other additional transparency measures should be used in the future.

We will look closely at our system for providing transparency around lobbying, and it is clear that we should consider again the use of non-corporate communication channels within Government. Revelations from the Epstein files have shown that it has been far too easy to forward sensitive information via unofficial channels. There is a lack of clarity about the use of non-corporate communication channels within Government, which has raised concerns about the security of official information, as Conservative Members know from their former Ministers forwarding information from the Government via private email accounts to people when they should not have done so. The Government recognise the consistent calls for a strategic review of these channels, the role they play in Government, the legal framework in which they sit and whether the current codes of conduct and guidance relating to them are effective.

This work will focus on the issues for the Government, but it will complement a range of work being carried out both in this House and in the other place. The Government are committed to the principle that second jobs for Members of Parliament should be banned outside very limited exceptions, such as maintaining a professional qualification. The Committee on Standards is currently conducting an inquiry into second jobs, and we are working with the Committee to deliver meaningful change as quickly as possible. The House is considering the legislation currently before Parliament to introduce a duty of candour, and the Prime Minister has been clear that we will bring forward legislation to enable the removal of peerages from those who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute. The Government will ask the Lords Conduct Committee to expand its work reviewing the code of conduct in the other place to consider whether standards issues, including the rules relating to peers and lobbying, need to be reformed.

Finally, I want to provide the House with an update on the response to the Humble Address motion passed by the House last Wednesday. The Government are committed to publishing all relevant documents in line with the motion agreed by the House, and we are working at pace to do so. As the House agreed on Wednesday, papers that the Government believe should not be published on national security or international relations grounds will be referred to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee. The Prime Minister wrote to the Chair of the Committee on Friday, acknowledging that it is important that documents are made available to Parliament as soon as possible. As the Prime Minister has set out, the Government are committed to being as transparent as soon as possible and in full compliance with the motion. The Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Secretary to liaise with the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I will ensure that the House is kept updated on this work.

We have all been appalled at Jeffrey Epstein’s disgusting crimes and Peter Mandelson’s despicable behaviour. It is utterly contrary to what the Prime Minister stands for and the values at the heart of this Government. We are resolute in our commitment to fighting men’s violence against women and girls and to supporting their victims. Delivering on this mission is a critical part of our response to the terrible misogyny at the heart of the Epstein scandal. We also recognise that Peter Mandelson’s behaviour has posed difficult questions about our safeguards against corruption. I have set out today the steps the Government are taking to ensure that the British public can have confidence in the integrity of public life, and as I said last Monday and today, I will continue to update the House on these matters as our work develops. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow—

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

We cannot have points of order; we are just beginning the statement. [Interruption.] Those are the rules of the House. I am not going change them especially for you.

I call the shadow Minister.

I thank the Chief Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

The Prime Minister’s authority is gone and his Government are starting to collapse. The Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson raises massive questions about standards in public life—questions that the Chief Secretary’s statement today just does not answer.

Advisers advise, but Ministers decide. On that basis, can the Chief Secretary explain why it was right for Morgan McSweeney to resign, but not right for the Prime Minister to resign? Morgan McSweeney might have provided the advice, but it was the Prime Minister who made the decision to appoint the best friend of the world’s most notorious paedophile to be His Majesty’s ambassador in Washington. The Prime Minister did that despite knowing that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s house while he was in jail for child prostitution. The problem is not the structures or the processes—the information was there; the warnings were there. The problem is that the Prime Minister had all that before him and yet chose to ignore it. He cannot keep blaming others. He cannot blame the process. He must start taking personal responsibility.

The record of this Government on standards is truly extraordinary. First, the Prime Minister was embroiled in the freebies scandal: £107,000 in gifts given to him since 2019 and a personal donor given a Downing Street pass. Then, the Prime Minister was reprimanded by his own ethics adviser over the appointment of a non-disclosed Labour donor to be the football regulator. His Transport Secretary, an ex-cop, had to resign over misleading the police. His anti-corruption Minister had to resign over corruption. His homelessness Minister had to resign for making people homeless. And then his Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary had to resign over a £40,000 unpaid tax bill on her house.

No wonder even the leader of the Scottish Labour party now says that the Prime Minister must go. Mr Sarwar says:

“There have been too many mistakes”

and that he has no choice but to be

“honest about failure wherever I see it.”

He is right.

Let me turn to some specific questions. First, can the Chief Secretary confirm whether Peter Mandelson received a golden goodbye severance payment, signed off by the Government? Why have the Government refused to answer that question since September? It has been reported that the golden goodbye was between £39,000 and £55,000, which is more than the average person earns in a year—that is grotesque. What steps are the Government taking to retrieve that incredible payment for resigning in disgrace? It sounded like the Chief Secretary was saying that he could not do it. I have to remind him that, at the moment at least, they are actually the Government. They can take action.

Secondly, will the Government agree to a full investigation of Peter Mandelson’s behaviour while he was our ambassador? On 27 February, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir, a client of Global Counsel—his own company. It was not recorded in the Prime Minister’s register of meetings; it emerged only later. Palantir was then directly awarded a £240 million contract by the Government. I make no criticism of Palantir. I simply ask: why was that not recorded? How many more such lobbyist meetings were there with the Prime Minister and what other inside information was being shared? Will the Chief Secretary agree, yes or no, to a full inquiry into Mandelson’s time as our ambassador?

Thirdly, let me ask about another new Labour veteran put forward for a public office despite his known association with a paedophile. No. 10 has said that it investigated Matthew Doyle’s relationship with a convicted paedophile, Sean Morton. No. 10 gave Doyle, the Prime Minister’s former director of communications, a peerage after purportedly examining this matter, but it has never clarified whether their relationship continued after Morton’s conviction. If Doyle cut ties with Morton upon his conviction, why do the Government not just say so? I ask the Chief Secretary to clarify that. Will he agree to publish all the documents relating to that appointment?

Fourthly, the Chief Secretary told the House on 2 February that a review of the decision to appoint Mandelson was under way. What form will it take? Will a statement be laid before Parliament, and when? Will Mandelson be interviewed as part of that review? Will it include the potential involvement of hostile intelligence services? Finally, have the Government responded substantively to the ISC’s request for more resourcing so that it can do its job properly in reviewing the papers that are about to be released?

No amount of process or fiddling about with procedures can compensate for a Prime Minister who lacked the judgment to act on the information put before him. The Prime Minister was warned about Mandelson—he knew, but he decided it was a risk worth taking. As the leader of the Scottish Labour party pointed out today, it is not just the Mandelson affair; time and again, the Prime Minister has got it wrong, from the winter fuel payment to the family farm tax. Just like with the grooming gangs inquiry, the Prime Minister has once again put his own political interest ahead of the interests of victims. At the start of his statement, the Chief Secretary said that the Prime Minister’s choices in this case go to the heart of who he is, and that is what we are worried about.

The Prime Minister’s head of communications has resigned; the Prime Minister’s chief of staff has resigned; and the leader of the Scottish Labour party says that the Prime Minister should resign. It seems like even in the Labour party, more and more people are now coming to the same conclusion as the public: this country deserves better.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the public had their say at the last general election, and they elected a landslide Labour majority, with the Conservatives suffering an historic defeat. In my view, one of the reasons the public booted that lot out of office was their repeated failings in standards and ethics, from the personal protective equipment contracts for dodgy friends to lying to Parliament and the sexual misconduct scandals. The hon. Gentleman asks me why it is that Ministers who have breached the code have resigned. It is because we fixed the system. The reason we have an independent ethics adviser who cannot be directed by the Prime Minister, as was the case under the previous Government, is that they are independent. When Ministers have been found to have broken the code, they have gone, because that should be the consequence for doing so.

The hon. Gentleman asks me what the Prime Minister knew at the time of Peter Mandelson’s appointment, but the Prime Minister has already answered that question repeatedly. The information that has come out since his appointment has made it clear that Peter lied to the Prime Minister about the state of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Had the Prime Minister known at the point of appointment what we all know now, with the privilege of hindsight, he would not have appointed him in the first place.

The hon. Gentleman asks me a number of questions about the process flowing from the Humble Address. As I have already informed the House, the Government are working with the leadership of the Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that we can comply with the Humble Address and co-operate with transparency to release the documents as we have said we will, in compliance with the Met police investigation and other constraints that are currently being managed. We will ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee is given all the available support it needs to be able to service the House effectively in line with the Humble Address.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement and for telling us that relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles where the appointee will have access to highly classified material, will have to pass the requisite national security vetting process before such appointments are announced or confirmed. [Interruption.] That may sound surprising to Conservative Members, who probably did not hear what my right hon. Friend said as they were barracking him so much, but that is to be—[Interruption.] That is to be welcomed.

The Foreign Affairs Committee believed that Peter Mandelson should have come before our Committee before he was sent to Washington, and we were right. We should not have been prevented from seeing him. In the past, political appointees to ambassadorial roles have nearly always appeared before the Committee, but only at the Foreign Office’s discretion. We do not want it to have that discretion any more. We would like it written into the rules that before someone is appointed to an ambassadorial role or to be chair of the British Council or director of the BBC World Service, those political appointees must appear in public before the Foreign Affairs Committee and answer our questions.

I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her question. She raises important points about the process for appointing ambassadors and the delay between announcement, appointment and the host country accepting their appointment to the role. That is why we have made it clear today that the security vetting process will now have to be concluded before announcement and confirmation.

My right hon. Friend asks me about the role of pre-appointment hearings. I know that the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office has already informed her Committee that it is entitled to invite ambassadors to appear before the Committee to answer questions. Of course, we continue to keep all other pre-appointment hearings under review.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Chief Secretary for advance sight of his statement. We must remember that we are having this debate today because of the courage of the women and girls who spoke out against Jeffrey Epstein and those connected to him. Their bravery has forced us to confront uncomfortable truths about power, accountability and the standards we must demand from those in public life.

There are many questions swirling around this place about judgment, and rightly so. While poor judgment cannot be legislated out, a better system can be put in place that leaves as little to chance as possible, but successive Governments have failed to do that. From partygate to ministerial code breaches that went unpunished, we have witnessed a systematic deterioration of standards, and the current system is broken.

The ministerial code lacks legal force. We need structural reform, and I welcome some of the measures that the Minister has mentioned in his remarks today, including the ability to boot out peers whose behaviour falls below the standard we should all expect. The ministerial code must be enshrined in law, with genuine sanctions for breaches. The ministerial code must extend beyond its current parameters to include senior public servants such as ambassadors, and we agree that vetting standards must also be made tougher and should include trade envoys like Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

We must ban those who have served in any capacity for a current foreign Administration from donating to political parties, think-tanks or campaign organisations. We must end government by WhatsApp. All ministerial instant messaging conversations involving Government business must be placed on the departmental record. They should be published quarterly, alongside emails, letters and phone calls, to ensure greater transparency. We should also protect whistleblowers through a new office of the whistleblower, with legal protections and criminal sanctions on Ministers who fail to report wrongdoing.

Just this morning, I met the lively and engaged year 12 students from Hazel Grove high school. When the next election rolls around, they will all be able to vote. They deserve better than this broken system, and we should all be working hard to restore the public’s trust in politics.

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. I think we can all agree that we need not just effective rules but effective enforcement for people who break those rules. These issues have highlighted the fact that there is more work to do, and I look forward, as do the Government, to working on a cross-party basis to make sure that, as she said, we bring justice for victims who are affected by the abuse of power.

In December 2025, Palantir won a three-year contract from the Government worth £240 million. The contract, which is three times larger than any that Palantir has previously won, was awarded without tender. Will the Minister ensure that there is full transparency about how this decision was made and who was involved?

Does the Minister agree that resignations under the last Government meant that true accountability could be evaded and obscured? More widely, does he agree that all our constituents wanted from us and this Government was the change that we promised to deliver?

On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I can assure her that all procurement rules have been followed, but if there is any suggestion of wrongdoing, we have powers under the Procurement Act 2023 to take action if required. On the second part, I agree that the public were calling for change at the last election, partly because of the repeated scandals that happened under the last Administration. That is why we have already taken action to make the ethics adviser independent and institute the Ethics and Integrity Commission, and as I said in my statement, we will go further.

I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

Can I ask the Chief Secretary the following points? He said in answer to an earlier question that the documentation would be released in compliance with the Metropolitan police. Can he ensure that his Department, No. 10 and the Met understand what parliamentary privilege means and assert it on behalf of this House? Secondly, he has mentioned that the Bill that would remove Mandelson’s titles is in preparation, but that is a short Bill. Could he tell us when he expects to see it introduced in this place and guarantee that there will be a one-day process for all stages of the Bill?

The statement today is entitled “Standards in Public Life”. Knowing that Mandelson was a friend of Epstein—forget the extent—and all of Mandelson’s baggage, could the Chief Secretary finally explain to the House why Mandelson was ever on the shortlist of people considered to be appointed to what is probably our most important ambassadorial role?

On the first question from the Chair of the Select Committee, I do not for one second question the supremacy of Parliament or the basis of parliamentary privilege; all I meant to say was that the Government are in discussions with the Met police, who have launched a criminal investigation, and that it is important that we work with them to ensure that information that is released does not then affect their criminal investigations. The Cabinet Secretary and others are in discussions with the Met police about that, and we hope to be able to say more soon.

On the Bill, as I informed the House last week, the Government’s preference is to bring forward legislation that could be applied to any peer who has breached the rules and brought the other place into disrepute. We have begun the work of looking at the scope and ability for such a Bill to be introduced. I have been informed that a Bill of that nature has not been brought before Parliament since 1425—[Interruption.] No, the 1917 Bill was about a collective group of peers who had been, I think, collaborating with the Nazis around the second world war.[Official Report, 10 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 7WC.] (Correction) This issue is different; it is about standards that should apply to all peers in the House of Lords, and there should be appropriate mechanisms for that to be instigated. We are working on that, and liaising with the House authorities to ensure that we do it right. We will bring the legislation forward very, very shortly.

On the final question, about the appointment of Peter Mandelson, as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly if he had known at the point of his appointment what we know now, he would not have appointed him in the first place.

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. Could he tell the House how the Prime Minister is considering strengthening the role of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, given his commitment to improving standards in public life?

The Ethics and Integrity Commission was set up only very recently by this Government to play an important role in relation to standards in public life. We want to work with the commission to ensure that we set it up for success in delivering on the issues and reforms that I have outlined to the House today. That is the basis on which we will collaborate with it.

I call the Chair of the Standards Committee.

I never comment on any conduct or standards issues that may impact individual MPs, precisely because of my adjudicatory role on the Committee on Standards, and I do not propose to refer to the Prime Minister in respect of the potential that, if not all the documents are disclosed to the House, there might be a breach of privilege.

However, let me say this gently: the Minister constantly refers to the past, and to my party’s role in government with regard to breaches of standards issues. From this moment on, will he accept that, given the litany of issues that have befallen the Labour Government, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) at the Dispatch Box, it would really behove the Minister to stop doing that, and just to ensure going forward that the Labour Government act with the same standards of conduct that they demanded of my party in government?

Also, given the Minister’s statement, might he request that the Prime Minister attend a meeting with the Committee on Standards to outline exactly how, moving forward, the Prime Minister will uphold the highest of standards?

On the first question, I agree that we need to ensure that we have a standards system, both in this place and the other place, that meets the challenges we are talking about. That is not a party political issue. I merely referred to the performance of the last Government given the chuntering from those on the Opposition Benches when I talked about the reforms that we are bringing forward to ensure justice for victims and appropriate powers to tackle corruption in the future.

On the second question, I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman writes to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s office will engage with him and his Committee on the invitation.

I think it is worth reminding my right hon. Friend that one of the things that people keep going back to is that a decision was made that this appointment was “worth the risk”, and we finally found out that some people decided that the rules did not apply to them. Considering how important tackling violence against women and girls is to this Government and this Prime Minister, would my right hon. Friend agree to meet women Back Benchers in particular to discuss the possibility of exploring further how we tackle misogyny in public life?

I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and colleagues and to do anything I can in pursuit of that outcome.

It is jaw-dropping how many rich and powerful people were within Epstein’s orbit, and how many of them believed that they were untouchable. It is important that we have a culture that is supportive and trusting around whistleblowers, so does the Minister agree that we need to have an office for whistleblowers as the backbone of such a positive culture?

I agree with the hon. Member that we need to ensure that those processes are available in all circumstances. My understanding is that the legislation was updated in recent years, but I am happy to consider any inputs from him and other Members if they wish to send them to me.

Could my hon. Friend confirm the actions that the Government have taken to ensure that direct ministerial appointments, including political appointments, must pass the appropriate security vetting processes prior to being announced or confirmed?

I can confirm for my hon. Friend that the rules have been updated to ensure that national security vetting must receive full clearance before any direct ministerial appointments are confirmed publicly, or then confirmed for appointments at later stages. As I recently said to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the process for ambassadors in particular can often be stretched out over a number of days—from announcement to being confirmed by the host country and then fully being in post—but we will update the rules to ensure that what happened in these circumstances with Peter Mandelson cannot happen again.

I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman’s desire to put things right. What I slightly doubt today is this: everything is about the Prime Minister’s judgment right now, and this looks a lot like smoke to me—this is right, but not right now. The point is that all this stuff about Mandelson was known in conversation and discussion. He was sacked twice for impropriety in Government office. He ended up on Deripaska’s yacht when the EU was discussing taxation on aluminium—improper again. All this stuff leads to the final question: why him? Then, of course, the vetting was not good enough, but it could have been, had they bothered to check everything. There is a big question to be asked here. Surely this is ultimately about the Prime Minister’s judgment in overruling anything that he found and deciding for his own purposes that this man should be appointed as our ambassador.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Prime Minister apologised last Thursday for having appointed Peter Mandelson to the post. As he said repeatedly, had he seen the information that we are now able to see from the release of documents from the US Department of Justice—which showed not only the level of corruption but the deep and extensive relationship that existed between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, about which Peter Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister at the point of his appointment—he would never have appointed him in the first place.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. My biggest concern, and the biggest concern of my constituents, is that the impact of behaviour like Peter Mandelson’s undermines trust in our politics and our democracy. Quite frankly, all parties in this House have had scandals related to someone in their party, and it gives us all a bad name. I ask from the bottom of my heart: can this Government get a grip of this, and end the sleaze and scandal culture that has engulfed all our politics and all our parties, so that I can go back to my constituents and say, “No, we’re not all the same”?

As I said in my statement, the vast majority of Members of this House, and also civil servants and other political appointments in the other place, come into politics to serve the public, not to serve themselves, but the Peter Mandelson issue has shown that, for all the rules we have in place that work for the majority of people doing the right thing, there have still been loopholes for people who want to do the wrong thing. We are now going to close those loopholes.

I thank the Minister for his statement—it was clearly preferable being here than at the reception that the Prime Minister is hosting for Scottish Labour MPs and MSPs later on. I have lost count of the number of times I have spent here dealing, in one way or another, with Westminster chaos. It often relates to Members of the House of Lords, who are there for life—be they Labour, Liberal or Conservative. This statement is tinkering. When will the Government commit to doing what they have promised to do for 115 years and deal with the obscenity that is the House of Lords?

The hon. Member will know that the Government are committed to working with peers in the other place to modernise the House of Lords and that we agree that that needs to happen. That is why we are in the process of removing hereditary peers and are working with the authorities in the other place to ensure that we deal with the issues we are talking about today.

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement and his focus on the victims of these appalling crimes. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that victim-survivors of these vile crimes are heard by those in power?

My hon. Friend is right to bring us back to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and to all women and girls who have been subjected to these atrocious crimes across the country, because evidently their voices continue to not be heard and these crimes continue to perpetuate. That is why the Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls and why we have introduced measures to ensure standards of public life are enforced in this place and in the other place.

May I tell the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, in relation to his previous answer, that the Foreign Affairs Committee repeatedly asked for Lord Mandelson to appear, but he refused to come, and that what the Committee did hear, from the permanent under-secretary, was that Lord Mandelson would be entitled to a payoff in relation to the terms of his contract? Can the Chief Secretary say how much Lord Mandelson received and whether he will be asked to repay it?

The Foreign Office is currently reviewing the terms of the contract that led to the suggestion of severance payments when Peter Mandelson was sacked, and it is due to update the House in due course.

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. It is refreshing to see a Government who are committed to making those in positions of trust accountable. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are clearly angry today. Maybe it is because this is in marked contrast to the record of people who voted to cover up for one of their friends. For ordinary people in Bishop Auckland, the crimes of Epstein are truly shocking and disgusting. They are shocked to see this global web of power and people acting with complete impunity. In addition to looking at improved vetting, are the Government looking at how we can have improved surveillance and vetting of those in a position of trust to make sure that those who are entrusted cannot do these sorts of things?

As my hon. Friend will have heard in my statement, the Government are pursuing a number of avenues, including the potential for more routine annual disclosure of financial and commercial interests, which we hope will shed more light on some of these issues where individuals are getting away with breaking the rules.

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will know that there are too many Members on both sides of this House who enjoy situations like this, and it belies the seriousness of the situation. Does he recognise that an integrity and ethics adviser would not be able to solve the appointment of somebody removed from Government twice if the Prime Minister wished to appoint them; would not be able to assist a former director of the public prosecution service whose professionalism should have been able to discern the truth in accepting lies; and would not be able to inject honour in a situation where a Prime Minister accepted the advice of an individual, and then accepted his resignation but received the advice?

The right hon. Member is right that the public do not expect party political bickering on these issues; they expect problems to be solved and justice to be sought for those who deserve it. On the question of the advice that the Prime Minister received, as I have said a number of times, Peter Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister. Questions were asked, and Peter Mandelson lied in his answers. I am sure that that will become clear as part of the disclosure of documents, in compliance with the Humble Address, in the coming weeks.

I thank my right hon. Friend for all that he is doing to overhaul standards in public life, following the absolute bin fire that the Conservative party left behind. Peter Mandelson is reportedly in receipt of a severance payment. As a former regulator, I know that clawback is an important tool. If possible, Peter Mandelson should be forced to pay back every single penny to the British people. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, the Foreign Office will come forward with more information in due course.

The Intelligence and Security Committee wrote to the Prime Minister last Thursday. The letter, which has been published, included the following request:

“The Committee would be grateful to, now, be told the date on which we will receive those papers such that we are able to plan the resourcing requirements”.

I do not doubt what the Minister said about the Government’s commitment to being as transparent as possible, but in his statement he repeated the phrase “as soon as possible”. Will he go beyond ASAP, so that the Intelligence and Security Committee can make resourcing plans before receiving the papers?

I can confirm that the Government will be working with the Intelligence and Security Committee; meetings are happening today and tomorrow morning about that. The Government are liaising with the Metropolitan police on the criminal investigation. Once that matter has been clarified, we will be able to move forward with disclosures to the House.

Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister elaborate on how the Government will work with the Committee on Standards on proposals to ban second jobs for Members of Parliament, in order to deliver meaningful change?

My hon. Friend will know that it was a clear manifesto commitment of our party to ban second jobs for Members of Parliament, except in limited circumstances such as those involving the maintenance of professional qualifications for doctors and lawyers. The Committee is considering those issues, on which it has been working in detail. The Government are working with the Committee to move those proposals forward as quickly as possible. I know that the Committee wishes to do the same.

It is notable that despite the Government’s huge majority, they have run out of people to stand up and defend their position. The Minister is—I am not being patronising—a very intelligent man. I therefore ask that he does not insult the intelligence of the rest of us by talking about the Prime Minister having believed Mandelson’s lies after he asked him questions. We now know from the forensic questioning by the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister knew that the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein carried on—“ongoing” was the word—after Epstein was jailed for offences related to paedophilia and prostitution. The Prime Minister apparently chose to ask more questions after that, and was lied to. What more did he need to know to realise that that man should never have been allowed within a mile of the post of ambassador to America?

The right hon. Gentleman will, in due course, see papers disclosed, in compliance with the Humble Address, that will be very clear in showing the questions that the Prime Minister asked of Peter Mandelson, and the lies that Peter Mandelson responded with.

We in Wales know how this story ends. The former Welsh First Minister, Vaughan Gething, was forced to resign following a serious error of judgment; the Prime Minister had expressed full confidence in him. The Prime Minister then went on to appoint Peter Mandelson, despite his association with a convicted paedophile being a matter of public record. What lessons, if any, does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister draw from this pattern of poor judgment at the very top of Government?

As I have repeated to the House, there must be rules that apply in all circumstances, to all people, in respect of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and to appointments to such roles, as well as clear consequences for people who lie or breach those rules. Those are the reforms that the Government are bringing forward.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister’s adviser, Morgan McSweeney, resigned because he had advised the Prime Minister to make this appointment. What advice did the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, give the Prime Minister? If he gave the same advice, should he not resign as well?

The hon. Member will know that it would not be appropriate for me to speak from the Dispatch Box on behalf of civil servants and special advisers. The statements released by Morgan McSweeney and Keir Starmer yesterday answer his questions about Morgan McSweeney’s decision to resign from his post.

A Government in thrall to men and corporations drunk on power is the rot at the centre of the Mandelson scandal. When people operate in the shadows, they think they can act with impunity. Of all seven Nolan principles, openness can help to build back the most trust. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that we must drive out corporate influence and money, and as a start, will he cap political donations, and ask all MPs and peers to follow my example in releasing logs of all lobbying meetings, so that people can know that we work for them?

As I said in my statement, on a number of those measures, we are looking at current procedures, and at whether they can be updated to provide more transparency. The hon. Member is right to say that although individual rules can be improved, that alone will not be sufficient to tackle the cultural issues that lead to some of these challenges. It is on us all, cross-party, and any other people in power, to call out such behaviour, and to make it clear that it is not acceptable in public life.

Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), this looks like smoke today. The horse has bolted so far that it is at Wetherby racecourse, and the right hon. Gentleman is not giving the answers that we need to hear. He said that this goes to the heart of who the Prime Minister is, so why did the Prime Minister believe that somebody who took loans that, in today’s money, would be worth more than £1 million, and who was found to be flogging passports, should ever be rewarded?

On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I would just remind him that the reforms that this Government have made in the past 18 months, and those we are talking about today, will be the most wide-ranging reforms to standards in public life that we have seen for a very long time. I would not call that smoke and mirrors; I would call that progress. On the second part of his question, as I have said repeatedly to the House, if the Prime Minister had known the depth and extent of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Mandelson would not have been appointed in the first place. [Interruption.] It is easy for Opposition Members, with the benefits of hindsight, and with access to documents that were not available to the Prime Minister at the time of the appointment, to say that things should have been done differently.

This is not about process; it is about the judgment of the Prime Minister, and we cannot legislate out the poor judgment that has been in evidence today. Perhaps the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has considered our calls for an office of the whistleblower, but does he agree that, in order to mitigate the frailties and the human error that we see here, we must ensure that there are proper criminal sanctions for Ministers who fail to whistleblow?

I point the hon. Lady to the duty of candour provisions that we are bringing forward in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which will include criminal sanctions for those who breach the rules. As I said to her hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I am happy to consider the wider recommendations for whistleblowers that she mentions.

Given the importance of standards in public life, why is it that the adviser who suggested that Peter Mandelson be made ambassador to the United States had to resign, but the person who actually appointed Peter Mandelson—the Prime Minister —is still in post?

The Prime Minister apologised last Thursday for having appointed Peter Mandelson. Had information that is now available been available at the time of his appointment, he would not have appointed him in the first place.

We all know that the Prime Minister is a lawyer, and lawyers must understand and test the veracity of information that is being provided. The Prime Minister has said from the Dispatch Box that he took a risk, and that he had known that Mandelson had kept up his relationship with Epstein. I suspect that the risk was of the public finding out, and the public do now know about this. Is it not simply time for the Prime Minister to go?

No.

The Minister’s statement is insulting. The first, but not the last, time that Peter Mandelson resigned in disgrace from a Labour Government—on that occasion, it was Tony Blair’s Cabinet —I was seven years old. Is the Minister seriously telling us that our Prime Minister needs tweaks to process to know not to hire somebody who has been a nationally notorious crook for over 25 years?

As the hon. Lady will have heard, if the Prime Minister had had access to the information that he now has about the depth and extent of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, Peter Mandelson would not have been appointed in the first place.

I direct the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to whistleblowing. I am hopeful that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister knows that during the passage of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, I was promised a meeting with him about whistleblowers; I look forward to that. Is he aware that current legislation dealing with whistleblowers directs them to seek an employment tribunal, but that there are 47,000 employment tribunal cases waiting to be heard? We have to do something about whistleblowing, and we have to ensure that protections are in place. I look forward to meeting him with a number of my colleagues, so that we can discuss the matter in detail and in full.

As I have said to the hon. Lady’s Liberal Democrat colleagues, I am happy to receive further representations on reform of the law relating to whistleblowers. If we need to go further, we will be happy to consider doing that.

The Minister has managed to throw out more chaff than a B-52. He mentioned security vetting. Does he mean developed vetting, of the sort applied to very senior officials, including military individuals, before they are appointed to extremely sensitive positions, or does he have something else in mind? Will that vetting be repeated periodically, as it is for officials? Will it be applied to both political appointees and ministerial appointments, where those positions are particularly sensitive?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are different processes for the different types of role that we have in government, from due diligence through to developed national security vetting, which he mentions. The important thing is that the right process is applied to the right person at the right time, and that is what we are reviewing right now.

The only statement that my constituents want today is a resignation statement. The only reform that they want is the reform that takes this Prime Minister out of No. 10 Downing Street, and it does not matter how many reviews, inquiries or fireguards the Government put in the way. The Prime Minister has lost the confidence and trust of the British people. We need a Government who will end this chaos. This Government promised to end the chaos when they came to power, but instead, it has gone through the stratosphere. The Prime Minister knows, everybody in this House knows, and everybody in this country knows that he is toast, so why do the Government not just get on with it and get rid of him?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be wishing for more chaos in our country. The public voted to end that at the last general election, and that is why this Government are getting on with delivering change for people across this country.

Today’s statement is little more than a smokescreen, and a chance to distract from the key issue, which is about Peter Mandelson and our Prime Minister. More questions are being asked, but there are still no answers, so may I take the Minister back to the central point? How much was the golden goodbye for Peter Mandelson?

I refer the right hon. Lady to my previous answer.

Of course we need a commissioner who has the power and ability to expose corruption and deal with it, but today’s statement was not required. We already knew that the Prime Minister made a bad judgment. What the public want to know is how he will be held to account for the things that he knew but ignored. Will the Minister assure the House that when he looks at extra powers for commissioners, he will not go as far as was gone in Northern Ireland, where the discredited former standards commissioner used her powers to silence Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who were questioning Ministers too vigorously, or who were not showing enough empathy when they made public statements about security situations in their constituency? I ask this particularly because when heckling fails, some Members of this House now threaten other Members by reporting them to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, to try to silence them that way.

It is important that we take good practice wherever it exists and learn the lessons where reforms have not worked, whether it is in our Parliament or in devolved Governments across the United Kingdom. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to write to me with his examples in more detail to ensure that we avoid that in the future. I assure him that the Government have no intention or desire to try to limit the voices of people in this House or anywhere else.

Let me go back to the process that the Prime Minister followed. He received information from the vetting and security services that Peter Mandelson might have had an ongoing relationship. He then questioned Peter Mandelson about that. Did he then test the answers that Peter Mandelson gave with the vetting and security service? If he did not, it can mean only one of two things: either the Prime Minister has committed a dereliction of duty or he is a credulous fool. Either way, should he not resign?

No.

May I take the House back to where this debate started? It began with the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), reminding us that advisers advise and Ministers decide. On the back of that, I want to give the Chief Secretary the opportunity—for the fourth time in this debate, I think—to answer a fairly fundamental question that my constituents and I would like to know the answer to. If it is right for an adviser to resign, why not the far more culpable decision maker?

As the Prime Minister has made clear, he apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson to the position of ambassador. Had the information that is now available been available at the point of his appointment, the Prime Minister would never have appointed Peter Mandelson in the first place.

May I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement about the new rules and legislation that he is bringing forward? I have missed something, though. Can he point to what he is bringing forward that would stop a Prime Minister from appointing a twice-sacked best friend of the world’s greatest paedophile?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the detail of my statement.

Where the Government have jurisdiction over documents and in compliance with the Humble Address, we will publish them, as I said to the House earlier today.

The Chief Secretary keeps making reference to, “If we had known then what we know now,” with regard to Peter Mandelson’s appointment. The key fact is that we already knew of Peter Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, as the Prime Minister spoke about at PMQs last week, just as the Government knew about Matthew Doyle’s relationship with Sean Morton and still gave him a peerage after the internal investigation. Let me come back to the resignation statement of the chief of staff yesterday. He stated that he

“did not oversee the due diligence and vetting process”.

Can the Chief Secretary explain who did oversee the due diligence and vetting process?

Those processes are administered by the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office, by the Foreign Office and by all the normal, appropriate authorities.

The Chief Secretary is an honourable man. He is answering incredibly difficult questions, and we have to recognise that. He will know that I seek to find solutions rather than prioritising point scoring in this House—I say that very respectfully—and in this instance it is clear that the public want a solution to the seeming litany of trust-breaking decisions taken by successive Governments. While we cannot please all people, the issue of a basic standard for public servants is non-negotiable, and this breakdown has highlighted the need for accountability at the highest level. Does he believe that that can be achieved without a complete overhaul of the appointment system?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; a number of changes evidently need to be brought forward. As he suggests in his question, that should be done on a cross-party basis in the interests of how we serve the public.

Confidence in the Prime Minister is at an all-time low, and many of the reasons for that have already been discussed. However, one particular issue is that the Prime Minister visited Palantir’s head offices in Washington DC in February 2025. Will the Chief Secretary confirm whether Peter Mandelson advised the PM to visit Palantir? What was the purpose of the visit? Will the Government publish details and minutes of the discussions that took place at that meeting? Will the Government review all existing contracts with Palantir and suspend any further engagement with it until the investigations are completed?

The Prime Minister engages with a whole host of businesses, whether in the United Kingdom or abroad. The hon. Gentleman’s question suggested particular wrongdoing; as I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), we have powers under the Procurement Act to act on these issues if we must. If evidence comes to light, we reserve the right to do so.

The problem with the list of measures that the Chief Secretary read out is that, unfortunately, not one will protect us from the Prime Minister’s poor judgment. Before asking my question, I point out the fact that—as the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) knows, and as the Chief Secretary has mentioned himself—the Government are currently introducing the duty of candour Bill, which will legally require Ministers to answer questions frankly and with any information that people could usefully think they should know. I ask for a third time: how much is Peter Mandelson due to take as part of his pay-off?

As I have said, the Foreign Office will update the House in due course.

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I definitely agree that Epstein’s crimes were disgusting and Mandelson’s behaviour despicable. I remind the Chief Secretary that, under the last Conservative Government, the now Prime Minister said,

“a fish rots from the head”

and that real change had to be

“led and modelled from the top”.

Yet here we are, and the issue is back. Despite the colour of the rosette changing, the Prime Minister’s closest circle must now take the fall for his poor decision making in appointing a man who was best friends with a paedophile. Given that there is now a criminal investigation into his closet advisers, should he not do the honourable thing and take his own advice?

The Prime Minister, as he said today, is getting on with the job of delivering the change for this country that the electorate voted for 18 months ago, rewarding my party with a huge majority in this House. These issues are important and we will fix them, not least keeping the victims of sexual abuse and abuse of power at the centre of our thoughts. I know that Members across the House will want to work with us to ensure that that is done.