PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Lord Mandelson - 4 February 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s Ambassador to the United States of America, including but not confined to the Cabinet Office due diligence which was passed to Number 10, the Conflict of Interest Form Lord Mandelson provided to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), material the FCDO and the Cabinet Office provided to UK Security Vetting about Lord Mandelson’s interests in relation to Global Counsel, including his work in relation to Russia and China, and his links to Jeffrey Epstein, papers for, and minutes of, meetings relating to the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, electronic communications between the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff and Lord Mandelson, and between ministers and Lord Mandelson, in the six months prior to his appointment, minutes of meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers in the six months prior to his appointment, all information on Lord Mandelson provided to the Prime Minister prior to his assurance to this House on 10 September 2025 that ‘full due process was followed during this appointment’, electronic communications and minutes of all meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers, Government officials and special advisers during his time as Ambassador, and the details of any payments made to Lord Mandelson on his departure as Ambassador and from the Civil Service.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing time for this Opposition day debate on presenting an Humble Address.

I think the whole House has been shocked and disturbed by the revelations that have emerged once again over the past few days. Peter Mandelson, it seems, helped Jeffrey Epstein and his associates to make money. That money was used to run Mr Epstein’s paedophilic prostitution ring. Those who broke the law to give that information helped to make him rich and powerful, and they share in some of the responsibility for the crimes that were committed, because they gave him the power that he abused. No doubt for some of those involved, this was just a heady game of who had the best contacts and who could make the most money, played by a small set of men who took their thrill from existing outside the rules. It seems that the more this thread is pulled on, the more that network unravels, and the more shameful the whole episode appears.

Generally, three main things must concern this House. The first is the now-emerging conduct of Peter Mandelson when he was a member of the previous Labour Administration between 2009 and 2010. I understand that that is now subject to a police investigation, and it is good to see that the Government are co-operating fully with that investigation. I am sure that, when the police have finished their inquiries, there will be future opportunities for us to discuss the matter in this House.

The second issue, of similar import, is the judgment of the Prime Minister in appointing Peter Mandelson to our most senior diplomatic role.

My hon. Friend is making excellent points. It is a surprise not to see the Prime Minister answering these questions himself. At the end of the day, he made the decision to appoint Mandelson to the post of ambassador, so he must explain his decision-making process, and what he knew and when. Why is he not here?

Order. In fairness, that is not a problem for Mr Burghart to address. Who responds is a matter for the Government.

I am glad that it is not my problem, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend is right: the appointment of this man was absolutely the Prime Minister’s responsibility. Today we are trying to dig into exactly what the Prime Minister knew, whether any information was kept from him, and, if so, who kept it from him.

This is a serious issue, and my hon. Friend is dealing with it appropriately. He will have heard, as I did, the Prime Minister refer to the fact that the “extent of the relationship” between Mandelson and Epstein was “not known”. The common view among Members across the parties at the time was that any relationship should have precluded Peter Mandelson from the appointment to be His Majesty’s ambassador to Washington. Does my hon. Friend share that view?

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point—one that is central to our considerations and to which I will return.

I have mentioned the conduct of Peter Mandelson while he was a member of the last Labour Government, and the Prime Minister’s judgment in appointing him, but I will also touch on Peter Mandelson’s conduct while he was our ambassador in Washington.

I commend the shadow Minister and the Conservative party for bringing forward this matter for consideration. What we are listening to and what is happening is absolutely incredible. May I suggest that the five years during which Mandelson was EU trade commissioner should be part of the investigation as well? A full investigation should include every t that was crossed and every i that was dotted by Peter Mandelson. That is what this House and this nation want.

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The more we pull on this thread, the more we seem to find. All Peter Mandelson’s dealings, as a politician and as a businessman, should now be laid out for the House and the country to consider.

The Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I sit, called for Lord Mandelson to appear before us on multiple occasions to explain the circumstances and process of his unusual appointment. He did not adhere to that request. Does the shadow Minister agree that Lord Mandelson’s failure to come before the Committee sends the signal that the Government wanted to hide something, that there were issues in the appointment and vetting process, and that, had there been transparency in the early stages of his appointment, we would have avoided sending someone wholly unfit to fulfil one of the UK’s most senior diplomatic roles?

That is a significant representation from a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It must be said that a failure of transparency at each stage of the process appears to have compounded the problems that the Government are now dealing with.

What do we know now about the Prime Minister’s judgment and the process in No. 10 around this appointment? We now know that the Prime Minister was aware that Peter Mandelson had an ongoing friendship with Jeffrey Epstein that continued beyond the conviction for awful offences against children. Not only was that in the public domain, but a Financial Times journalist told the Prime Minister about it in January 2024. The Prime Minister admitted in the House today that it was part of the briefing note that he received from the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team. We fully expect the report compiled by that team—the due diligence report—to appear for this House to consider.

Reports on that document have appeared in the New Statesman this morning. We are told that the due diligence report contains warnings of

“potential conflicts of interest surrounding Global Counsel”,

the lobbying firm established by Peter Mandelson, in which he retained a stake of around 28%. We know that Global Counsel had Russian and Chinese clients, about which, according to the reports in the press this morning, the propriety and ethics team had serious concerns. We know—or at least we are told in the press—that the due diligence report also referred to Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, stating clearly that Mandelson’s relationship had gone over the point of conviction, and drawing attention to the fact that Mandelson had used Epstein’s hospitality in America and Paris while the latter was in prison.

The shadow Minister is absolutely right in his summary of all Jeffrey Epstein’s misdoings. We heard some shocking revelations during Prime Minister’s questions, such as the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson as ambassador despite knowing about his relationship with Epstein. Does the shadow Minister agree that the Prime Minister’s position is becoming increasingly untenable?

There is no doubt that the Prime Minister’s judgment is being called sharply into question at this moment. It is becoming harder to see how any of us can rely on his judgment in future.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will give way one more time, and then I must make some progress.

The Prime Minister’s judgment is most certainly in the frame. What about his candour? Does my hon. Friend remember that on 16 September, the Prime Minister himself introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which at its heart has a duty of candour? Did we see candour displayed at Prime Minister’s questions today?

As my right hon. Friend knows, the Government developed an appetite for candour and then lost their appetite. That Bill has disappeared into the ether. Too much candour would do this Government harm.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way in a moment; I would like to make a little progress.

It was reported this morning in the press that in September, following Peter Mandelson’s sacking, there was a Cabinet Office investigation into any further wrongdoing. Will the Paymaster General confirm whether he is aware of such a report and at least assure the House that, if such a report comes to light during his investigations, that will be published in response to this Humble Address?

The Conservatives fully understand that the Government have a duty to protect national security and our international relationships—of course they do. They must also understand, however, that security and our international affairs are completely entwined with this issue. The Paymaster General will have seen this morning that the Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, has announced that Poland, one of our strongest allies in Europe, will examine the paedophile’s links with the Russian intelligence services. As he said,

“More and more leads, more and more information, and more and more commentary…all relate to the suspicion that this unprecedented paedophilia scandal was co-organised by Russian intelligence services.”

Thousands of the documents released over the weekend refer to Putin and thousands more to Moscow. We know that Epstein recruited young Russian women and we know that he held parties in Russia. In some emails, I understand, Epstein said he could offer “insight” on Donald Trump to Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. Those are all the ingredients of classic kompromat and this House cannot be deprived of consideration of such issues in the case of the Mandelson papers.

It has been for years a matter of mystery and speculation where Epstein acquired his vast wealth. Does my hon. Friend think that the Russian connection may provide the definitive answer to that mystery?

My right hon. Friend is quite right that this is exactly one of the issues that must now be investigated and done so very seriously, not just by this Government but by our allies in other jurisdictions. Though we do not yet know for certain how the money came to Epstein, we do now know where some of it went. Understanding its ultimate source will help us construct a picture of this very complex and devious web.

I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

At the heart of what we are talking about is this. Do we accept the amendment from the Government about

“national security or international relations”?

My hon. Friend and I have both served in the Cabinet Office and I am sure that he shares my sympathy with the need to protect national security. However, there is a vast difference between protecting national security—for example, in direct intelligence reports from agents on the ground or intercept—and subjective judgments made about things that may be embarrassing for national security or international relations. That is why the Leader of the Opposition was precisely correct in saying that we need some independent mechanism. Why on earth can we not agree that the Intelligence and Security Committee should look at each of the exemptions? If it feels they pass the threshold, that is fine and we will accept that, because we need to protect national security—but it cannot be to spare the Labour party’s blushes.

My right hon. Friend, who was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and who knows more about national security than almost anyone in this House, is right. The Government’s judgment and their behaviour are under investigation here. It cannot be the case that the Government can then decide what is disclosed. Fortunately for the House, there are mechanisms available to us, not least the ISC, which would do a very good job on behalf of the Government, working with them to decide what information could and could not be released.

Built into the Humble Address mechanism itself is an understanding that national security is protected. There is no need—

I promised to give way to my old adversary the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) first. Then, I will happily give way to the hon. Lady.

I compliment the hon. Member on the content of his speech so far. This inquiry will have massive ramifications. It is an inquiry into the gilded circle surrounding Mandelson, which extends very broadly around this House and the civil service, the business community, the media and internationally. Is it not time that we had a novel form of inquiry which is not undertaken solely by Parliament or the civil service, but which is a much broader, more public inquiry that will look into the whole issue? This is a basic corruption of our political system that we are looking at in the behaviour of Peter Mandelson.

The right hon. Gentleman appears to be correct in that there is certainly an indication that serious corruption may have taken place. In the light of that, the House must consider closely what the best means of getting to the bottom of all these relationships and influences will be.

The House is getting a lesson that many families in Northern Ireland, such as those of Sean Brown and the victims of Stakeknife, have learned over decades that national security is routinely deployed to cover the blushes of the UK Government. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is now arriving at that point. Would he support a wider review of his party and the Government’s application of “national security” to all sorts of disclosure cases?

Without wishing to be distracted from the motion at play, I have seen Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland of all parties in successive Governments try hard to ensure that there is maximum disclosure for the people of Northern Ireland, while ensuring that national security is not compromised. I am afraid that I see things through a slightly different prism from the hon. Lady.

I will give way one more time and then I intend to make some progress.

There is a well-worn route for dealing with these matters, through Humble Addresses and otherwise. Previous Humble Addresses, when the Labour party was in opposition, would sometimes name a Select Committee. I was on the receiving end of that as the then Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. I genuinely want to ask the hon. Gentleman this: why did the Opposition not put in the Humble Address that this matter should go to a Select Committee? I think that there are still ways to use the Committee corridor to scrutinise anything that may be more sensitive than that which can go into the public domain.

I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees with us that the ISC should be used in this context. I am glad that there is agreement between her and me that those on the Government Front Bench should use the ISC to act in this way. I hope that other Labour Members will take the same view as that extremely experienced parliamentarian.

Will my hon. Friend give way on that?

I will give way one more time.

Since my hon. Friend mentions the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am a member, may I put this to him? The purpose of the ISC is not to act as some filter to decide what should go to the rest of Parliament; it is to act on behalf of Parliament to consider material that Parliament, for good reason, cannot see. This is a motion about whether the Government should disclose all the relevant material to Parliament. In that context, is it not a perfectly usable and familiar mechanism for Parliament in circumstances such as these, by which the Government may disclose anything that they do not believe the whole Chamber can see to the Intelligence and Security Committee?

My right hon. and learned Friend speaks from a position of experience. He is entirely right; the House is fortunate to have the ISC and that is one of the functions that it can perform. The Government can have reassurance on national security and the House can have reassurance that no material is being kept from it that the Government might find embarrassing.

In his remarks, will the Paymaster General, who I know will have had nothing to do with this and who I know is a man of integrity, think seriously about the options of gisting and the role that the ISC can play in that and make sure that the Government are not marking their own homework? It is important that our constituents and this House have confidence in what the Government provide us with.

Before I hand over to other Members, let me move briefly on to the conduct of Lord Mandelson while he was our ambassador in Washington, which I think is relevant to our debate because it again exposes the Prime Minister’s lack of judgment in appointing him. There is obviously strong evidence to suggest that Mandelson behaved entirely inappropriately when he was Secretary of State under the last Labour Government, but equally big questions are now outstanding about what was happening in 2025 in Washington—as I said, this is relevant now. On 27 February 2025, the Prime Minister, while in Washington, visited the American data and AI company Palantir at its headquarters. The meeting did not appear in the Prime Minister’s register of visits; it only came to light later.

Palantir, we should remind ourselves, was a client of Global Counsel, the company in which Peter Mandelson had a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir received from this Government a £240 million deal. That deal was granted by direct award. Given the allegations now coming to light about Mandelson’s conduct, will the Minister assure the House that the Cabinet Secretary will review the circumstances around the award of that contract, and assure himself that there are no other such contracts, no other undisclosed meetings, and that the Government will go through all communications and messages that Mandelson sent out while he was ambassador, some of which we must assume, were sent to old business contacts, a potential few business contacts, and so on?

The Prime Minister knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained an unhealthy relationship with a man who was a convicted paedophile, and he appointed him to the role of ambassador anyway. Everybody in this House should be shocked by that. It must be concluded that had the Prime Minister been pressed on that point at the time, the appointment would not have been made, because the Prime Minister knew, his aides knew—but the appointment was made anyway. What else did he know? Only after this Humble Address, and only if the Government treat it in good faith, will we know that. I very much hope that we do not find that there are gaps in our security and vetting process. If there are, the Government will be able to fix them. I think it also likely that we will see reports that consistently raised concerns which were swept away. It will then be the duty of the Government to disclose who swept them away, and why. Ultimate responsibility must rest with the Prime Minister. It is time for him to take responsibility.

I call the Paymaster General to move the amendment.

I beg to move amendment (a), at the end to add

“except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations.”

Members will be aware that the Government came to the House on Monday for an update following the release of 3 million pages of documents by the United States Department of Justice regarding Jeffrey Epstein. As the Government said on Monday, and as I reiterate now, Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted paedophile and a despicable individual who revelled in abusing the vulnerable and destroyed the lives of countless women and girls.

Will the right hon. Member give way?

I will complete my introductory remarks, and then I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

What Jeffrey Epstein did was unforgivable, and every time his crimes are in the public eye, victims must relive their trauma. His victims are at the forefront of my mind, as I am sure they are for all right hon. and hon. Members in this debate. The Prime Minister has said that anyone with relevant information must come forward and co-operate with investigations, so that Jeffrey Epstein’s victims get the justice that they have been denied for so long. As for Peter Mandelson, his decision to maintain a close relationship with a convicted paedophile, including discussing private Government business, is not just wrong, it is abhorrent.

I thank the Minister for giving way. I am curious. Earlier we heard the Prime Minister state that he knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Did the Minister also know, and if so, did he express any concerns to the Prime Minister at that time about his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America?

On the second point, I played no personal role in the appointment process, but as the Prime Minister said, the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship was not known at the time of his appointment. As soon as that came to light, the Prime Minister acted decisively and sacked Peter Mandelson.

Given the public disgust, the sickening behaviour of Peter Mandelson, and the importance of transparency, in 2022 I proposed a Humble Address, seeking information about personal protective equipment, which the Conservative party resisted—my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) mentioned that earlier. Should the ISC not have the same role now, keeping public confidence in the process?

Let me pick up this point, which I know a number of right hon. and hon. Members have raised. In the first instance, the process will be conducted and led by the Cabinet Secretary, with unimpeachable integrity—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) shouts “cover-up” about the Cabinet Secretary, and he really should consider that remark, I think. Secondly, this will be conducted by Cabinet Office lawyers.

The House is asking, fairly, a broader question about scrutiny, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and there is a role, as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said, for Select Committees in how they scrutinise this, as well as existing powers for the ISC in terms of scrutinising this—[Interruption.] I am hearing what the House is saying, and I will take that point away.

I will take one more intervention, and then I have to make some progress.

It is disappointing that neither the Opposition nor the Government have referenced the important role that the ISC could have here. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee—I have spoken to its Chair, the Lord Beamish, and we heard earlier from its deputy Chair—we feel that the Committee should be involved to help this process on behalf of Parliament, and I urge my right hon. Friend to speak to No.10 to ensure we get that, and that it happens quickly.

As I think I have already said, I will take the point away. My hon. Friend knows from our personal details on a different matter my respect for the Intelligence and Security Committee and its work.

I will give way to the former Deputy Prime Minister, then I have to make some progress.

The point here is not about impugning the integrity of the Cabinet Secretary; the point is about confidence in this House. The temperature in the House seems to be that most people feel that involving the ISC will give both this House and, more importantly, the public confidence in the process. It sounds as if the Minister is sympathetic to that point, so will he confirm that he is sympathetic to it, and that he will be making the case to Downing Street for that tweak?

I was not accusing the hon. Member for South Suffolk of impugning the Cabinet Secretary; my point was that the process is official-led and decided on by Cabinet Office lawyers. On the broader point that the House is making, I can do no more than say I hear what Members are saying, and I will take that point away.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way once more to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, but I must make some progress.

I am grateful to the Minister—he knows that the House knows that he is an honourable gentleman in every sense of that term. The mood of the House is clear, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) has set out, as have others, the role of the ISC, and the expectation that it discharges these serious and sensitive matters on behalf of the House, and that the Government have confidence. During the course of the debate may I invite him to go back to No.10, take advice, and not press his amendment this afternoon? I think that would reflect the will of the House and allow people to start moving these issues forward. To press the amendment today would, I suggest, be a retrograde step for the Government and their reputation.

As I said to the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), I will take the first point away. I disagree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on the importance of the amendment, which I will come back to in moment. There are really important public policy issues that I want to deal with in that respect.

Let me return to the thrust of my speech.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I will give way in a moment.

Let us be clear: no Government Minister of any political party should have behaved in the way that Peter Mandelson did, and it was absolutely disgraceful. The alleged leaking of crucial documents to help millionaires to profit in the middle of the global crash and lying to contemporaries, the Prime Minister and the public are both shameful and shameless.

Let me finish this point; I will take some more interventions in a moment.

Peter Mandelson will now account for his actions and conduct. That is why the Cabinet Office has referred this matter to the police. The Metropolitan police has released a statement confirming that it has

“received a number of reports into alleged misconduct in public office including a referral from the UK Government.”

The statement also confirmed that the Metropolitan police has started a criminal investigation in relation to potential misconduct in public office offences and that it will

“continue to assess all relevant information brought to our attention as part of this investigation and won’t be commenting any further at this time.”

The House will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on that particular development.

I will take one intervention—

Order. We are getting very carried away with the way in which the work of the Metropolitan police is being thrown around. I am meant to have been contacted, but neither I nor the House has been contacted. The House will understand that I am not responsible for the ministerial answers—let me put that on the record and see if we can tidy this up a little.

For the avoidance of doubt, I understand that there is an ongoing police investigation into this case. However, no charges have been brought. The House sub judice resolution does not apply. In that context, it is up to the Ministers how they reply, but the House rules do not prevent them from answering fully. Please do not hide behind the possibility that something is not factual—let us get this on the record. I have still not had a phone call on this matter.

I hear precisely what you say, Mr Speaker, and I entirely accept that interpretation of the sub judice rule. I am certainly not hiding behind that; indeed, I will come on to some remarks about this issue in a moment.

Order. Maybe I can help a little. I think the answer was, “We can’t do this, because there is a police investigation.” We have to recognise that that is not a reason, so do not let us play off each other. I have made my point from the Chair.

I completely accept that, Mr Speaker.

I will take one intervention from a Member on the Government Benches, then I will take one from a Member on the Opposition Benches.

I made this point on Monday, but it is really important to make it again. The vast majority of Members in this House come here to represent our constituencies, and people across this House will recognise that I do my best to represent Harlow as much as I possibly can. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Does the Minister agree that the reason why the case of Peter Mandelson is so damning and upsets so many people across this House is because when that individual was in the other place—potentially when he was in this place—he was not representing the people he was supposed to represent? Instead, he was representing a vile paedophile. Does the Minister also agree that the reason for the strength of feeling across the House is that Peter Mandelson is letting down all of us?

Yes. The public rightly demand the highest standards from those in office and from Ministers. We should be held to the highest standards, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Peter Mandelson fell far, far short of those standards, and his behaviour has been revealed to be appalling. As the Prime Minister has said—

Order. The Minister has been giving way and will give way, but you cannot all stay on your feet shouting, “Will he give way?” Let us give the Minister some time; he will take your interventions when he feels he is in the mood to take them.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), then I will take another intervention.

At the point immediately prior to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, the UK had a respected ambassador to the United States already in Dame Karen Pierce. Given that fact, the known abhorrence of Jeffrey Epstein and the appalling previous judgment of Peter Mandelson, why did the Government still decide that, on balance, it was a risk worth taking to appoint paedophile-adjacent Peter Mandelson to the post of ambassador?

May I pay tribute to Dame Karen Pierce? She represents the finest of our foreign service.

Governments do make political appointments to these posts; that has happened, and it is a long-standing practice for a small number of posts. The Prime Minister has already said that if he knew then what he knows now, Peter Mandelson would not have been anywhere near the Government.

I will give way to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and then my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).

I am no longer the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

It seems that we are in something of a muddle here. Had the Opposition named the ISC in the Humble Address, as has happened in the past, there would have been no debate in this House. Putting all the information openly in the public domain could have risks, but there are well-worn filters through Parliament, such as through Committee corridor—various Committees could have locus in this space—to properly and sensitively handle information that, in my time, has never leaked from a Committee. Does the Minister agree? That would ensure that we on Committee corridor are holding the Government to account on behalf of Parliament. There is consensus that everybody wants as much information as possible in the public domain so that we can get to the bottom of what has happened in this egregious situation.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the existing mechanisms of scrutiny, and I give her great credit for her work. As I have said in response to Opposition Members, I will take that point away.

On the point about Peter Mandelson letting people down, let me say that the people let down the most are the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Does the Minister agree that we would not be discussing this disgraceful situation if it had not been that people listened not to the women—the victims—who came forward in the first place, but to men in power, men with deep pockets and men advising those in power? Do we not need to put the victims at the heart of this, not just ourselves?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is the victims—the women and girls who were victims of the trafficking and the appalling, abhorrent behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein—who should be at the forefront of our minds.

I will make a bit of progress, then I will give way a few more times.

Not only has the Cabinet Office referred the evidence about Peter Mandelson’s time as a Minister to the police, but we are taking action going forward, in the Hillsborough law before this House, to introduce a duty of candour for all public servants that will make it an offence to lie to the public. We will make it a criminal offence to do anything but act with openness and integrity when things go wrong. That is the action that this Government are taking to prevent future cover-ups and injustices. It is a statement of intention that we want to enshrine that capacity to speak truth to power. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said, the voices of victims should be at the forefront, not, as in this case, a group of powerful men. We are putting an end to the situation in which powerful people are able to avoid justice.

Will the Minister give way?

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in one moment.

The Government should rightly be tested and questioned by this House, but the action that is taken by this Government is crucial now. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Secretary to review all available information regarding Peter Mandelson’s contacts with Jeffrey Epstein during his period as a Minister and to report back as a matter of urgency. After an initial review of some documents, the Cabinet Secretary made the decision to refer the matter to the police, with the Prime Minister’s support. I should say that the Government stand ready to provide any support that the police require as part of their investigation.

On that note, I will give way to the Father of the House.

We are all agreed on the character of Lord Mandelson, but I am not sure that we will make much progress if we are just repeating ourselves on that, because we all agree. The reputation of the House is at stake, and what the Opposition have to do is hold the Prime Minister to account. I have listened very carefully to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister. He and the Prime Minister have been asked on repeated occasions whether, when this appointment was made, the Prime Minister knew that Mandelson had continued his relationship with Epstein after the first conviction. That is a very direct question. The reputation of the House is at stake, so will the Minister now answer that question?

The Prime Minister answered that question at Prime Minister’s questions. He was lied to about the depth and extent of the relationship.

I stand here acutely aware that I am the Member of Parliament for Hartlepool, and I think today I speak for Hartlepudlians when I look at the evidence before us and say: undoubtedly, Peter Mandelson is a traitor. On that basis, it is important that the public have confidence in this process. Does the Minister agree?

I absolutely agree; my hon. Friend expresses the anger felt by many across the House.

I will make some more progress, before giving way a few more times.

Members will recall that back in September—in the light of the additional information contained in emails written by Peter Mandelson that were released at the time—the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador with immediate effect. The emails released showed that the nature and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that which was known at the time of his appointment.

The issue over which Peter Mandelson was withdrawn from Washington was information not available at the time that the due diligence was done. A due diligence process was conducted by the Cabinet Office, and a security vetting process—they are different—was also carried out. Since entering government, we have already taken action to strengthen the process for making direct appointments for ambassadors specifically, and for direct ministerial appointments more generally.

There is clearly concern about Government amendment (a)—that it does not go far enough to enable scrutiny of those documents that might be withheld. Across the House, there is a growing consensus that the Intelligence and Security Committee could provide a way forward for the independent scrutiny of those documents. Could a manuscript amendment be tabled to that effect—something we can all join together and vote for, so that we can take this serious matter forward?

A manuscript amendment would be a matter for the Chair. As the Chair, I would be sympathetic to what the House needs to ensure that we get the best.

Well, I hope that the House always takes me at my word when I say that I will take these matters away with me.

The Cabinet Secretary will be taking independent advice on the decisions he takes through this process, and he intends for that advice to take two forms. First, he will have the advice of an independent KC throughout the process, and secondly, there will be scrutiny of his approach by the ISC. I hope that gives the House the necessary reassurance.

I have some past experience of drafting Humble Addresses on different matters in this House myself. The Opposition motion is clearly extensive—I think the House recognises that—but it is imperative that the Government protect sensitive information that could damage national security or relations with our international partners.

I remember the Humble Addresses that were tabled in this place during the Brexit years. The Minister will know that, in opposition, we never felt the need to put national security or international relations on the face of a motion itself, because that was an implied protection.

Can I ask the Minister two things? First, he helpfully said that the ISC will be involved in scrutiny of the process. Does he mean the process by which the Cabinet Secretary looks at documents, or will the ISC itself be able to see documents? Secondly, I think we all understand what the Minister means by “national security”, but could he tell us what he means by “international relations”? It is quite a broad term, so I would welcome some clarity.

I think my hon. Friend and I have similar memories of that particular Parliament. To give an example, in the motion relating to Lebedev, we included the words,

“in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security.”

When I was involved in drafting Humble Addresses, I was very precise about that.

I am really grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know that he takes the role of the ISC very seriously, and I appreciate that he is trying to help the House with what he has just said. However, he will appreciate that the difficulty for the House is that it needs to decide what to do in relation to the motion before it today; Members on both sides will have to decide how they should cast their vote. Although there is some reassurance in the fact that the Intelligence and Security Committee will be involved in the Cabinet Secretary’s process, that will not be possible before we have to reach a decision on this motion.

The principle here is surely this: the whole House cannot see everything. I have sympathy with the Minister in relation to national security material and, I am bound to say, rather more sympathy than my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) with regard to potentially sensitive material on international relations. Following the comments made by Government Members, including the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), is not the answer today that those on the Opposition Front would accept their motion including the concept that, if material is sensitive, it would be supplied only to the ISC, not to the whole House, but that everything should be disclosed to the House either via that route or via a route to the whole House?

Beyond the deadline to amend the motion—a familiar situation that the right hon. and learned Member and I have found ourselves in before—I want to say something very clearly. I hope the House takes my previous answer on this as having been given in good faith—

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister just said that the deadline has passed to table an amendment. Can you confirm, Mr Speaker, that you just told the House that you would be sympathetic to a manuscript amendment, which would not be subject to that deadline?

The Chair is able to select a manuscript amendment, for which there is a high bar. There is a lot to clear up and I am sure that things can move forward, but in a nutshell, the answer is yes.

I hope the House takes in good faith what I have sought to do in the course of my speech, let alone in the course of the debate. I think that scrutiny of the process is very important.

Will the Minister give way?

No.

The scope of the motion could also include thousands of documents. It is obviously in the national interest to protect national security, and to be transparent and act with urgency—I completely accept that—but it is important that we now take time and care to balance those elements.

Let me make some progress, and I might come back to interventions.

The Government have tabled amendment (a), so that documents are published unless they prejudice national security or international relations—I know I was asked a specific question about international relations—because of course such documents might contain information about our relationship with our international allies and how we have approached them. It is obviously important for Governments to keep that information confidential, because it is in the national interest. I am also very conscious of another issue: I am definitely not seeking to hide behind the cloak of the Met police investigation, but of course we will also have to bear in mind the fact that documents might prejudice that investigation. That is something that we will continue to speak to the Met about.

We will of course do all we can to comply with the motion, as amended, and we will update the House accordingly. I also want to say to the House that, while the process of going through a significant number of documents might take a little time, it is important that the Government start the disclosure process—to the extent we can—today. That is what the Government will do in response to the debate and to the very reasonable questions that are being asked.

Will the Minister give way?

I am someone who rewards effort, so as the right hon. Gentleman has put in such effort, I will give way.

May I return the compliment by telling the Minister how much I admire his ability and generosity in giving way? I think he is doing an exceptional job.

I understand where the Minister is coming from in relation to Government amendment (a). Perhaps I can describe an example of something that he may wish to see passed through the ISC that cannot be made publicly available—that is, which of our foreign allies had something to say about the appointment of Peter Mandelson to Washington. I appreciate that the Minister is never going to say precisely who that ally might be, but the nature of that correspondence is surely a matter of public interest, and therefore is of interest to this House, but it is not something that can be bruited abroad. The ISC provides the very obvious solution to discovering what representations were made, and what material was passed between our allies and the Cabinet Office, before this appointment was made. Can the Minister make that commitment?

I hope the House has seen, even over the course of this debate, the constructive approach I have tried to take on the role of the ISC in this process. That is precisely what I have done.

I want to turn now to another aspect of this matter, which is the peerage. Another action the Government are determined to take is to strip Peter Mandelson of his title, as the Prime Minister has set out. Frankly, I think people watching this debate will be bemused, because there is no other walk of life in which a person is unsackable unless a law is passed. We will therefore introduce primary legislation. The Government have written to the Chair of the Lords Conduct Committee to ask the Lords to consider what changes are required to modernise the process of the House in order to remove Lords quickly when they have brought either House into disrepute. The Government stand ready to support the House in whatever way is necessary to put any changes into effect.

Being in office is a privilege—every day is a privilege. That is why there is anger across this House about Peter Mandelson and his actions. The test for the Government in these circumstances is the action we take to respond. As I think has also come through in this debate, our utmost thoughts are with the victims: the women and girls who suffered at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein. Behind the emails, the photographs and the documents are many victims who were exposed to this network of abuse. They should be our priority in this matter, and I am sure they will be for the rest of this debate.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

We are having this debate today solely because of the women and girls who found the courage to come forward and speak about the abuse they had endured over years at the hands of rich and powerful men. Without these women’s bravery in speaking up about their experiences at the hands of a paedophile sex trafficker and his friends, none of these shocking revelations would have come out. We owe these women justice, and we owe it to them to make changes to create a system that works.

The hon. Member is right: victims should be at the heart of this process. The allegations against someone who the Prime Minister and Ministers put full trust in are also absolutely shocking.

Jeffrey Epstein was a sick child predator and a sex offender. He visited Hillsborough castle on at least one occasion. Does the hon. Member agree that this House and the Government should have a full review of his activities while there, and an audit of his visitors during that time? The victims deserve answers.

I agree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of some of the individuals we are talking about today. We will be supporting the Leader of the Opposition’s motion to request the information that is sought. The Liberal Democrats would go further, looking to a public inquiry in order to get to the detail that the victims deserve.

The revelations about Peter Mandelson’s conduct raise profoundly serious questions about judgment, national security and accountability. The leaked emails suggest that while serving as a Cabinet Minister, he shared sensitive Government information, sharing details about the 2008 financial crisis, market-sensitive bail-out measures and potential asset sales. These allegations point to potential misconduct in public office, aimed at helping those involved to enrich themselves. They certainly warrant the police investigation that was announced yesterday, but also reveal catastrophic failures in the systems meant to protect our national interest.

The emails highlight a fundamental lack of accountability that exists within our current system. The Prime Minister has rightly called Peter Mandelson’s conduct a betrayal, and has submitted material to the police and requested draft legislation on removing peerages. These responses are necessary, but it has taken the Government far too long to get to this position. Mandelson was appointed ambassador to the United States by this Government and this Prime Minister even after his links to Epstein had been extensively reported by the Financial Times and “Channel 4 News”.

In evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee after Mandelson had been withdrawn from Washington, the Cabinet Secretary said that a summary of the developed vetting and conflict of interest report was given to the Prime Minister prior to Mandelson’s appointment, and the Prime Minister appeared to confirm that at the Dispatch Box earlier. The Government and the Prime Minister have repeatedly said that it was the extent of the relationship that somehow altered the appropriateness of his appointment. What message does my hon. Friend think it sends to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, and to the many victims of rape, paedophilia, sexual assault or sex trafficking, that anyone with a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein should be deemed appropriate to be our representative in Washington?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I am not sure what extent of friendship with a known, convicted sex trafficker is appropriate for somebody who is to be put in our most senior diplomatic position. In 2019, Channel 4’s “Dispatches” interviewed a witness who saw Epstein, while he was in prison for child sex trafficking, take a phone call from Mandelson. Mandelson asked for a favour—to meet the then chief executive officer of J.P. Morgan. All this information was in the public domain.

The hon. Lady’s point is exactly right: this information was in the public domain, often in the US. One of the questions that the Government have not answered is whether the US was asked if there were any concerns. This relationship was public—we knew that it existed—so was the US asked for any information, or about any concerns it had? I have not heard the Government explain that point; has the hon. Lady?

I am sure that I have been listening as intently as the hon. Gentleman. There are so many questions that it is right for the Government to answer, and we believe that a public inquiry, after any police investigation has concluded, is the way to get to the bottom of them. There are questions swirling around about which advisers said what, when, but the decision to hire Mandelson was ultimately the Prime Minister’s, and he must be held responsible for that.

The Minister said that Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes were “unforgivable”. Does my hon. Friend think that the Prime Minister appointing said known paedophile was forgivable?

I think my hon. Friend is referring to the appointment of the friend of a known paedophile, rather than the appointment of a paedophile.

Thank you very much.

That is an important clarification to make. Rightly, there are questions surrounding the judgment displayed by the Prime Minister in appointing Peter Mandelson to the position of UK ambassador to the US. Those questions are wholly valid, as are the questions being asked about current Cabinet Ministers who also chose to maintain friendships with Mandelson—there are rumours of him popping in and out of some offices at will. I must say, I noted the facial expressions of some Government Front Benchers during Prime Minister’s questions earlier.

Of course, many questions were raised about Mandelson before his appointment. Questions were raised about him during the 2009 expenses scandal. He was forced to resign from Cabinet twice for unethical behaviour, and we understand that the security services raised serious concerns about his appointment last year, yet he was still appointed to one of our most sensitive diplomatic positions. This is not a case of one unforeseen problem; it is a pattern of warning signs that were ignored. This Labour Government promised to break with Conservative chaos, but instead we see the same failures—inadequate checks, reactive crisis management, and an inability to prevent obvious problems. You do not restore public trust with heartfelt apologies after things go wrong; you do it by having proper systems that stop scandals before they happen. Labour has failed to maintain public confidence, and it must do better.

Obviously, people here want to get to the bottom of this, in terms of the accountability of the Prime Minister and other elements in No. 10, and of course they want to get to the bottom of what Peter Mandelson has done. However, the public understand that this is not just about a number of rotten apples in the system—it is systemic. It is about those who have wealth, power and access, and how they treat young girls and women, and us, the public. They take us for mugs. Does the hon. Lady believe that this goes wider than just a few bad apples? It is systemic, and that is what needs to be addressed. That is what the public want.

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I wonder whether he has looked at my notes and read about the systemic changes that we Liberal Democrats would like. I agree with him that this goes far beyond a few bad apples. There are systemic failures in our country that we need to seize this opportunity to address.

Successive Administrations have failed to address fundamental weaknesses in our system of government that further threaten public confidence. I will do as the Father of the House urges and focus on how we make progress. We must make reforms to the ministerial code, as it is clearly not functioning. The code is a set of rules and principles, and acts as guidance for Ministers, rather than having a legal basis, so Ministers who breach it face no legal consequences. When breaches of the ministerial code are investigated, even by independent advisers, the Prime Minister can decide whether to listen or not, so “accountability” becomes almost meaningless. Will the Minister consider using this troubling episode in our national story as a catalyst for much-needed change and enshrine the ministerial code in law?

The Liberal Democrats believe that if we are to go some way towards restoring vital public trust in our democracy, we need to make fundamental reforms to this House and the other place. Members of the Government clearly share that sentiment, as we have heard various Ministers on the airwaves over the past couple of days saying that the Government recognise the urgent need to reform the Lords, and may bring proposals forward at pace. Can the Minister lay out further details of the Government’s plans to legislate, especially given growing concern about public trust in our democratic institutions and the integrity of this Parliament?

The Government hold a substantial majority in this House, and they can push through legislation rapidly, as we saw only last week with the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill. The same process could be used to make urgent changes to the other place. Ministers need to set out the legal mechanisms available for suspending or removing a peer, the timetable for any planned legislation, the progress of cross-party discussions that have been mentioned in the press, and how confidence in the upper Chamber will be restored. If there is no clarification, uncertainty risks further eroding public confidence in Parliament and our democratic institutions.

On the motion and the Government amendment, we Liberal Democrats firmly believe that transparency is vital. The very least that the Government can do is release the information requested, so we will support the motion, but we would go further. We do not even know the full extent of the British establishment’s involvement in Epstein’s appalling crimes, or how many British girls and young women were trafficked by him. We call for a full public inquiry, with the power to compel witnesses, both to get justice for the victims and to protect our national security.

The best disinfectant is often daylight. I am strongly in favour of transparency; I welcome it, including about the information that is being requested today.

The hon. Lady’s point about the wider establishment is important. Individuals like Sir Richard Branson clearly offered to help Epstein launder his identity and reputation by suggesting public relations advice on how he might recover from his prosecution. We have gentlemen like Bill Gates, whose wife has bravely spoken out, saying that one of the reasons she left him was his links to Epstein. How do we make sure that such men, who continue to have extreme power, face some sort of justice?

The hon. Lady is entirely right to talk about the very well-known men—and it is men, wealthy, powerful, greedy men—who should be held accountable for their actions. We should all welcome the transparency that is being sought today. We should have in mind the victims and survivors, and the need to prevent young girls and women from becoming victims and survivors of similar crimes. We should do all we can to prevent that, and should take the responsibility that we have seriously.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) mentioned in Prime Minister’s questions, as did the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) at the Dispatch Box in this debate, that the Polish Government think that Epstein might have been spying for Putin. The British public and Epstein’s victims deserve to know whether a UK Cabinet Minister was leaking secrets to not only a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, but a Russian agent.

We Liberal Democrats recognise the vital importance of safeguarding national security, and we genuinely welcome the openness that the Minister displays about looking at using the ISC to get to the bottom of some of this. However, there are already safeguards to protect national security. Those include the National Security Act 2023, which restricts the disclosure of information where that would harm the safety or interests of the UK. By tabling their amendment, which uses international relations as a reason to keep secret the information that they have, the Government are trying to wriggle out of their obligation to tell the truth, and we will not support it.

The transparency point is really important. Peter Mandelson was a Labour politician and this is a Labour Government. It may be that Peter Mandelson was an isolated bad apple, and that no one knew anything about what he was doing until this document release last week, but the public will wonder, and they will question. If a Labour Government cover up things by being anything less than fully transparent, the public will wonder who they are covering up for, and why.

A series of Administrations have not been as open as they could be, and have made poor choices about the behaviour of some of their Members, which has ended up in scandal and disgrace. I completely agree, if the hon. Lady is making the point that public trust in our institutions and our Government is vital; we must all take that seriously. There is a sorry legacy of recent Governments who behaved less than impeccably in a number of ways. We strongly support using this whole sorry episode as a catalyst to bring about much-needed change.

The Prime Minister has said that it is all okay, because the Cabinet Secretary will command this review. Does the hon. Lady agree that while the Cabinet Secretary is a person of impeccable repute, he cannot be objective, because he has been involved in this matter? It is almost unfair to put this on him. What mechanism can the hon. Lady devise that will deal with that, other than giving the great bulk of this information, because international relations will cover the great bulk of it, to the ISC?

The right hon. Gentleman has clearly been reading Liberal Democrat press releases, because we believe that a public inquiry would be a far more effective way of getting to the bottom of this matter. I am delighted that he made that point.

The hon. Member is making some excellent points. Does she agree that all the inquiry systems that have been discussed so far are influenced or participated in by people who have been within the golden circle of Peter Mandelson? Do we not need something novel and different, such as an independent, judge-led or judiciary-led inquiry that examines the whole thing in the round, similar perhaps to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war?

I am always delighted to get agreement from across the political spectrum, and I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman: an independent, judge-led inquiry would be the right way to go.

On the shortcomings of what the Prime Minister proposed from the Dispatch Box earlier, the Cabinet Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee back in November:

“The only information which was not already in the public domain at the time is a reference to official records which have since been disclosed”.

We have obviously learned this week that was not the case, so the Cabinet Secretary is plainly not the right person to lead this Government investigation. Does my hon. Friend agree?

My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well. I believe that an inquiry in public, which could take evidence in camera, when appropriate for reasons of national security, would be the right way forward. I encourage the Minister to consider where we go from here.

Transparency must be prioritised over the potential embarrassment that any of these documents could cause. Surely Government Members must see that. The intentionally broad wording of the Government amendment would permit the Government to keep any correspondence hidden that they think might embarrass them or our allies—that means Trump and his cronies—or that might paint the Prime Minister somehow as weak. That is surely a relevant factor when considering international relations. It must not be allowed to do so, and we will be voting against the pretty shameless Government amendment.

There are rumours that Peter Mandelson is still receiving a salary, or payments from the UK Government, potentially including his ambassador’s salary severance pay and/or a pension from his time as a Minister. I would be grateful if, when winding up the debate, the Minister could confirm whether any of that is the case.

Will the hon. Lady give way one more time?

I will give way one last time.

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary on 5 December, asking when Peter Mandelson’s pay had stopped, how much the severance pay was, and whether taxpayers have had to foot the bill for it. Although that was well over two months ago, I have received no response. How can we have any confidence that this investigation will be carried out properly when the Cabinet Secretary will not even answer basic questions about how Mandelson was paid and how much it cost us all?

I strongly agree with the hon. Lady. Transparency is what the public deserve, and it is what we in the House demand.

This whole sorry tale is about more than the failures, greed and corruption of one man, or even whole swathes of rich, powerful men who conspired to abuse their wealth and power over many years. It is about judgment, and also about a system that has long been not fit for purpose, and an establishment that wants to keep things just the way they are because that suits their needs. We should use this shocking situation to bring about the changes that our country needs, that trust in politics demands, and that those brave women who spoke out deserve.

I would like to start by acknowledging the victims of Epstein and the powerful men around him: vulnerable, abused women and girls who were sold and traded. Since the publication of Epstein’s papers, we have learnt so much more. An email from Jeffrey Epstein to Peter Mandelson, dated 28 October 2009, reads as follows:

“new york? brown? cuban-american…have you made any decisions?”

A few minutes later, Peter Mandelson responds:

“why are you awake. these questions are all related – desp for CuAm but can only get to NY at a time when people feel G”

—that may be Gordon Brown—

“won’t have some sort of breakdown…still working on it, therefore”.

There are so many questions to be asked about that. One of the suggested answers might be that this is not just about young women.

Does the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee regret describing the appointment of Peter Mandelson as “inspired”, and did she know of his ongoing relationship with Epstein prior to his appointment?

I will come to that, because it is important, and it is important to put it in context.

Since then, we have seen not just that, but treachery of the worst kind. The question is: how did we get here? How did a man like that become Britain’s ambassador to the United States? We must begin by taking ourselves back to the time when Donald Trump was elected, and consider how challenging and difficult it was to know who was the best choice for ambassador. There was a choice: we could have continued with the ambassador who was already there, Karen Pierce. She had been invited to Mar-a-Lago many times; she had connections with Donald Trump’s circle; she was an older woman; she was a powerhouse; she is great at making friends; she wears mad shoes. She is one of a generation of senior, older women, too many of whom are no longer in the Foreign Office and have been replaced by boys. At the time when Labour was elected, all the other six members of the G7 were represented by women, as was the United Nations. Now there is only one.

We had a choice between deciding to ask Karen Pierce to continue to be the ambassador and going in another direction. The question was: what was the right way to do it? We chose Mandelson because it was seen as an imaginative response, and I welcomed it as an imaginative response. Personally, I would have continued with Karen Pierce, who is a woman I know, trust and admire, but if a different direction was to be taken, it was a choice that was imaginative and one that made some sense in the context of Donald Trump becoming President.

On 3 November, when we discovered more information about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, we asked Chris Wormald, the Cabinet Secretary, and Oliver Robbins, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to come before the Foreign Affairs Committee to give evidence, because we were concerned about how this had happened. Clearly, so much background information about Peter Mandelson was out there but did not seem to have been considered properly before a decision was made, so we asked how it had happened. We were told that the first thing that had happened was due diligence. Due diligence meant fast-stream civil servants having the opportunity to search open sources, so they go to Google and they look, and that threw up reference to Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

I said to Sir Chris Wormald—this is question 313 in the transcript—

“It is really important to be clear about this—I am sorry to keep banging on about it—but was the Prime Minister told that Peter Mandelson had stayed at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse in 2009, when Epstein was in prison for soliciting an under-age girl?”

Perhaps this is because of my background as a lawyer, but there seems to me to be a difference here. To stand by a friend who has been accused of something shows one sort of character—it shows a certain strength—but to continue to be friends with them after they have been convicted, and to stay at their house, shows a completely different type of character. That, to me, was a nub point, so I wanted to know whether the Prime Minister had been given that information, which was publicly available—although, I have to say that it had passed me by; I knew of the friendship, but that is different from knowing that the friendship had continued post-conviction. I think it is really important to establish that difference, and that was something we asked about in the Committee hearing. The answer was, “I am not going to tell you the contents of the due diligence report.”

I understand that the right hon. Lady is saying that the information that Peter Mandelson had maintained a relationship with a then convicted paedophile passed her by. However, she does have an entire committee of Clerks who will have advised her. She also says that she said that this was an imaginative appointment. I am afraid she actually said that it was an “inspired appointment”. I know, because I spoke out against the appointment. Will she please tell me whether her Clerks at any point shared with her concerns about the background of Epstein and his relationship with Mandelson, and whether she will therefore now say that she regrets calling it an “inspired appointment”?

Anyone who either made the decision or said that it was a good thing must regret it, of course, but we must remember that the appointment was made on the 18th and I made those comments two days later. During those two days—in the run-up to Christmas—the Clerks were not the people I referred to first. Work was done thereafter, and the reason for that work was that we wanted Mandelson, once his appointment had been announced, to come before the Committee to be questioned. We felt that it was very important that he should appear before the Committee in an open hearing, where we could ask him questions, such as the ones that I put, and a record could be made.

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

May I just finish?

For instance, I said this:

“if you had come before us, we would have looked on the internet—we would have googled—and we would have found that Channel 4 had done a documentary, ‘The Prince & the Paedophile’, that clearly highlighted Mandelson’s links with Epstein. We would have given consideration to the Financial Times and Guardian reports in June 2023 that referenced the JP Morgan internal investigation. In those reports, what was most damning of all was that Epstein was sentenced in 2008 to 18 months’ imprisonment for soliciting an underage girl, and Peter Mandelson goes to stay in his townhouse in Manhattan in 2009. At that time, Peter Mandelson was the Business Secretary. So we have the Business Secretary staying in the townhouse in Manhattan of someone convicted of paedophilia.”

We would have asked those questions, and whatever answers would have been given, whether they were honest or not, would have been out there in public.

The problem, I think, was that a decision was made in the haste of Donald Trump’s election to go for an “imaginative”, “inspiring” or “alternative” person to go to the United States, and not enough time was spent on it. The decision was therefore made to appoint, subject to—

No, please, let me finish. [Interruption.] I want to finish what I am saying.

Order, please.

So the decision to appoint was made. There was supposed to be some due diligence before that happens.

I can help the House by explaining what that “due diligence” meant. As I have said, that was looked at by civil servants on the fast stream. We asked, “When you did the due diligence, what detail of the results was given to the Prime Minister?” I said that it was very important that we were given information about what the Prime Minister had been told at that point, because the friendship with Epstein was generally known about, but the ongoing friendship and the specific point about him having stayed, while a member of Cabinet, in Epstein’s New York townhouse was, to me, a very different matter. I wanted to know whether the Prime Minister had been let down by not being told that particular point. In the end, we cannot expect the Prime Minister to do all the due diligence himself—he does have a country to run. He relies on those around him to give him proper advice, so that he can then work on that advice and make decisions on that basis.

Seven Members are seeking to intervene. If I may, I will perhaps take two interventions.

This whole debate centres on the judgment, and trust in the judgment, of our Prime Minister of this United Kingdom when he decided to appoint the monster—when he decided to appoint Mandelson as our ambassador to the US. The right hon. Lady has just confirmed that the Cabinet Secretary refused to answer questions about vetting, yet the Prime Minister is asking us to trust the Cabinet Secretary to make decisions about the release of documents and information. Does she agree that it must be right that the Intelligence and Security Committee makes those decisions, as opposed to a Cabinet Secretary in whom we no longer can have trust?

Again, for the record, I asked the Cabinet Secretary why he was not prepared to give that information to us, and he gave two reasons: first, because he felt that he had a duty of care to the candidate; and secondly, because he was not going to put information about his advice to No. 10 into the public realm.

I think that the proposed amendment makes a great deal of sense. We can see a lot of bustling around going on in the background of the Chamber at the moment, so let us see what comes from that. I will take one other intervention.

The right hon. Lady is making strong and clear points about the relationship between Epstein and Mandelson. The Prime Minister was clear at Prime Minister’s questions that he knew the relationship was ongoing, and he knew that at the time he appointed him. What sort of ongoing relationship with a non-related convicted paedophile is acceptable to the right hon. Lady for someone who is meant to represent our country on the world stage?

I think I have made it clear that, for me, there is a difference between being a friend of someone who is accused of something and then putting distance between oneself and that person if they are then convicted. I think a decision should be made at that point. That goes to a matter of conscience and the right way to proceed. That is my view.

I will not take any more interventions.

I have explained what our Committee was told about due diligence and how that happened. Normally what would then happen is that an interview would be done with a panel, and questions that arose during due diligence would be put to the candidate during that interview. But that did not happen in this case because it was a political appointment. So if anyone had any concerns about Peter Mandelson and his background, or any of the things that people are now concerned about, those would not have been formally put to him during any form of interview process where minutes were taken and we could now look at what those conversations were. That, I think, is a really important piece of information to put before this House so that people understand how this happened.

We have due diligence—fast-streamers looking at the internet—nothing being put to Peter Mandelson, and then the decision being announced. The decision was announced in the middle of December, as we have heard, and then they wanted to do it really quickly, presumably so that he could be at the President’s swearing-in. Also, once the announcement was made, Karen Pierce would have lost power and influence, because it would have been known that she was not continuing in post, so it was important to move as soon as possible.

The next stage was vetting, which is done by the Foreign Office. The question I have for Ministers is this: given that the announcement had been made and that speed was needed, was pressure put on the Foreign Office to get through the vetting quickly? Was there, to coin a phrase, a need to “get on with it”? That is an important question to ask and one that we need an answer to, but we must also be realistic. Once it was known that Peter Mandelson was going to be the ambassador for Britain, it would have taken huge bravery and introduced potential risk to withdraw him from the appointment if anything had come up at the vetting stage.

As Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, does the right hon. Lady know what the then Foreign Secretary—the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—knew at that time? Does she think that that should also be brought to the attention of the House in this release of documents?

The point is that the due diligence and vetting are done by civil servants and are not supposed to involve politicians, and the decision was made in No. 10. That is how it works, as I understand it, so the views of the then Foreign Secretary may not be directly relevant.

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way once again; she is being very generous. What is the point in civil servants doing due diligence if that information is not given to politicians when they make the decisions?

No, it is given to those who are making the decisions—as I understand it. The due diligence is done by the Cabinet Office. It does due diligence on a number of candidates, and then the decision is made as to which candidate will be put forward. Then it is announced. Then the vetting is done by the Foreign Office, and that information is handed back. I believe that that is the process. I think it is important, for clarity, that people know the process, because if we are about to get a large amount of information, it is important to understand how it worked.

The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee is right in that respect. I will just quote from a letter from the Cabinet Secretary to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I chair:

“Due diligence is generally carried out by the appointing minister’s department (in this case it was carried out by the Cabinet Office on behalf of No 10) so is not usually shared with other departments, and was not in this case.”

That answers the question of whether the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was involved; this was purely the Cabinet Office and No. 10, so the right hon. Lady is right. I just thought that that quote might help her in her argument.

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.

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?

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”.

I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s explanation of the process, because many people outside it wonder what information is shared and what process is gone through. It is hard to believe that the information held by the Department of Justice in the US was not shared with our security services or disclosed in the process, given the security clearance that is required for a post of this nature. On that basis, and to eliminate any accusations of cover-up or conspiracy, is it not the right path to have the Intelligence and Security Committee look at this and thin the evidence that comes forward?

Order. Before the right hon. Member responds, let me say that we have a very healthy number of Members wishing to contribute, so can we make sure that interventions are short? I assume that you will be coming to your conclusion shortly, Dame Emily Thornberry.

Throughout my contribution, I have tried to explain the attempts that the Foreign Affairs Committee has made. The most important thing is that we asked several times. We asked straightaway in January, and we asked in February. We asked many times to have Lord Mandelson in front of the Committee, because we would have been able to ask those questions.

We would perhaps not be in the mess that we are in now if the Foreign Affairs Committee had been able to do its job properly, and we expect that the next political appointment, if there is one, will be put before the Committee so that we are able to ask questions in a way that is not necessary for appointments of people within the Foreign Office. If the Government want to appoint someone who is a politician, politicians should ask questions on the record, so that we know what we are getting, what contribution they can make and the risks that are being taken. We would have asked about Epstein and loans, and the answers—truthful or not—would have been on the record.

Humble Addresses are very difficult for the Government of the day and for Chief Whips. The Minister for the Cabinet Office, who has just left the Chamber, tabled many Humble Address motions that I dealt with. They are difficult from a legal point of view, and from the position of protecting the rights of the Executive to have independent advice. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, sometimes those judgments are handled in a way that, retrospectively, might have been different.

The national security element is obviously extremely important, and I pay tribute to all our intelligence services for the protection they give our country, but I believe that this Humble Address is quite different from any other that has been put before Parliament. This Humble Address is about corruption at the very heart of our democracy. In my view, the corruption does not relate to the current Government, although there are obviously differing views on their judgment and so forth. For me, this Humble Address is the route by which we will start to get to the bottom of what looks like a level of corruption that we have not seen in this Parliament in recent times. How we handle that and move forward is critical to all of us, and it is vital for public trust.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I am not going to give away.

We heard earlier about a discussion between members of the ISC and the Government, and I know that conversations are taking place via the usual channels, but I say to Government Front Benchers that what I have heard from the House today is that it wants the Government to cede control of the relevant documents to either the House or the ISC, regardless of whether those documents relate to national security or foreign policy. I have also heard that the House is very cognisant of the fact that this place will not see all the documents. The ISC may see many of those documents and we will not see them, but the issue for the Government is whether they can make the next step to cede control of those documents to this House and the ISC.

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. From my perspective—I wonder if he agrees with me—if the amendment had said that anything that was secret or top secret needed to be withheld, that would be a very different argument. However, the use of the very vague terminology of “national security”—which has never been used in a previous Humble Address by the Opposition, as I made clear in a point of order after Prime Minister’s questions—is a nonsense, and the idea of “international relations” is completely vague.

I agree with my hon. Friend on that point. I am aware that one of our Five Eyes allies gave a warning about Peter Mandelson. I do not know whether that is true, but I know that as a humble Back Bencher. The House now needs to know, because this is a House matter. If we do not deal with it satisfactorily, we will all be condemned by what has gone on. I urge Ministers to ensure that, in the next hour or so, the discussions focus on not just ISC involvement, but ISC oversight of all sensitive diplomatic or security-related documents.

My second point is about the nature of the Humble Address itself. It is very tempting for the Government of the day to take a narrow view of what the Opposition have asked them, but as we heard from Opposition Front Benchers, there is evidence, or at least there are allegations, about Peter Mandelson’s time in Washington. That relates to who attended embassy parties and how UK Government contracts came about last year. In my view, we should now address all these issues and get them out in the open, so that we can fully understand not just what happened and the judgment of the Government, but what was behind the threats and what our allies were worrying about, which included China, Russia and many more things than just the corrupt act itself.

This Humble Address should be regarded by the House, and particularly by the Government, as a vehicle. It is a vehicle for protecting our democracy, and for beginning to unpick exactly what happened, on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims.

I want to start by saying that I remain extremely supportive of the Government. I am proud of what we have achieved together in a short space of time. We have delivered massive investment into the NHS and schools. Those are all positive steps, and we are taking meaningful steps to reduce inequality, lift people out of poverty, and support families through the cost of living crisis in an increasingly uncertain world. We have also committed ourselves to tackling violence against women and girls with a seriousness and ambition that are long overdue.

Just yesterday, Members from across the House came together to vote to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, including Members from Reform, the Lib Dems and other parties. I was proud to walk through the Aye Lobby, and I was proud of this House overall, yet that tangible progress has been almost entirely overshadowed by the growing scandal surrounding Mandelson. That should concern every one of us in this House, because we stood on a promise to do politics differently this time. We said that we would turn the page on the scandals, the secrecy and the sense that there was one rule for the powerful and another for everyone else. We said that we would restore trust in public life. Once lost, trust is extraordinarily hard to rebuild.

The hon. Member will be aware that, earlier on today, the Prime Minister made the concession from the Dispatch Box that he knew. Is this not a question of trust in the Prime Minister, given what he knew when he made his decisions? That is what makes it so serious for this Government.

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think we are talking about trust across the House, so that includes every Member of this House, and across both Houses.

The Government’s violence against women and girls strategy is one of the proudest achievements of this Parliament. It is the product of years of tireless campaigning by survivors, advocates and frontline organisations who have fought to have their voices heard, but that work and that trust is fragile, and it risks being profoundly undermined when we appear unwilling to apply the same standards of transparency and accountability to those closest to power as we demand elsewhere. How can we stand in this Chamber and say to victims that we believe them and that we will stand with them, while refusing to release full documents relating to serious concerns about one of our own? How can we ask victims to trust the system if the system appears unwilling to scrutinise itself?

The files released last weekend further highlighted what many already fear: there exists a despicable elite network operating with proximity to power, entangled in international criminality, and shielded for far too long by status and influence.

My understanding is that new information is coming out daily and that other current Members of this House may or may not be directly linked to the Epstein-Mandelson scandal. Does my hon. Friend agree that they should be fully investigated as well?

Anybody linked should be investigated—simple.

If we are not fully transparent about how we vetted the ex-US ambassador in the face of such scandal, how on earth can we expect victims to come forward in future? How can we expect them to trust institutions that seem designed to protect the powerful rather than the vulnerable? I think of the survivors I have met in my constituency and since being elected. I think of the advocacy groups who have worked alongside all of us across the House: organisations such as the Hollie Gazzard Trust, Sarah Taylor from PEEPSA—Prevent, Educate and Eradicate Post Separation Abuse—and campaigners who have poured their lived experience into shaping the VAWG strategy. How can I go back to them and look them in the eye having voted for an amendment that has the potential to conceal the behaviour of powerful people and their potentially criminal relationships?

On that point, quite a lot in the disclosures naturally raises questions about probity. The issue about power and control, and of having information that can compromise, is that once you are compromised you are compromised, and every decision can be compromised. That really does highlight the importance of independent oversight of the evidence. I hope that when the Minister returns to the Dispatch Box, he reflects on that in his response.

Yes, I completely agree. I will get on to the ISC in a second.

What would I say to those victims? That transparency matters, except when it is inconvenient? That accountability applies, except when it is uncomfortable? As a party, we promised to halve violence against women and girls. We promised to put victims at the heart of everything we do. Yet today we are being asked to accept an internal review into how the close friend of a known paedophile was vetted—an internal review carried out by the very structures that failed to prevent this in the first place.

I wish to credit the hon. Gentleman for the speech he is giving today. Very early in my career, I voted for something and I could not sleep that night. Never since have I voted for something that has made me feel ashamed of myself, and I will never do it again. It takes bravery to do that so early in the hon. Gentleman’s time in Parliament. It is really important. I hope his colleagues on the Labour Benches, in particular the new intake, stand behind him, support him for the decision he has made and do not criticise him, because he is doing what he believes to be right. All credit to him, because we know how difficult that is, from having governed for so long. I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he is saying and what he is doing today.

I thank the hon. Member for her words.

How can we mark our own homework on matters of such gravity? I want to be clear. I understand the position the Government find themselves in. I understand the concerns that have been raised about embarrassment, reputational damage, and national and international security. They are serious considerations and should not be dismissed lightly, but if vetting decisions were influenced by compromising relationships, we have a far bigger problem—one that demands scrutiny, not silence; one that requires us to re-evaluate how this country operates on the international stage, and whether transparency and accountability are truly guiding principles or merely slogans.

An independent review by the ISC, coupled with a commitment to release documents, subject to independent legal advice, is not an unreasonable request. The public are not naive, and if such a process is deemed unfavourable by the Government, they will draw their own conclusions. I am not making any accusations today. I am asking reasonable questions on behalf of my constituents and victims who are watching this debate closely. Will No. 10 be candid? Will it show humility? Will it choose transparency over defensiveness?

Let me be equally clear about something else: I do not believe the Opposition tabled this motion with victims at heart. We can all see the political point scoring at play, but the motivations of the Opposition do not absolve us of our responsibility. Given the strength of feeling among victim and survivor groups—and, frankly, given my own conscience—I cannot in good faith support a position that risks further eroding trust in our commitment to justice. Power and trust go hand in hand. The responsibility that comes with holding public office must never be understated. We are entrusted—all of us—with shaping national policy, representing our communities and safeguarding the most vulnerable. That trust must be earned every single day.

So today, not because it is politically convenient to me but because it is morally necessary, I am voting with the victims, I am voting with the survivors and I am voting for the principle that no one, however powerful, should ever be beyond scrutiny.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop). I will return in a moment to a point that he was just making.

I have the great privilege of being the father of three wonderful teenage daughters. Any parent or relative will feel their stomach turn and churn at the thought of vulnerable young women being trafficked and used as playthings for the sexual gratification of warped and twisted minds who thought they were above the law, to whom the rules did not apply, and who thought they could get away with it because of who they were.

I suppose the surprise as it relates to Peter Mandelson is that we are surprised. He was a man who seemed magnetised to money like a moth to a flame, and who had caused considerable and significant embarrassment and discomfort to previous leaders of his party. The current Prime Minister decided that, in some way or another, it was only the extent of the relationship that should be the determining factor, whereas the existence of the relationship at all should have precluded Peter Mandelson from an appointment to be our ambassador in Washington.

I want to pick up on a point raised by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean, and to which I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) was also referring. My conscience—I do not say this particularly smugly—is a bit clearer than my hon. Friend’s, if she is referring to the same vote, because there was a vote in this place. Those on the Treasury Bench need to remember this, because there are certain votes and motions in Parliament that become a Thing, with a capital T. They become an event. They set the scene that makes the atmosphere for the coming months and weeks of a Government. I think that this issue, and how the Treasury Bench responds later, is one such Thing.

Owen Paterson was and is a friend of mine, as well as a former parliamentary colleague. We were asked to vote for something which effectively would have got him off a very painful hook. I, along with 12 other Conservative MPs, against a lot of whipping, voted against the then Government amendment to effectively, de facto, exonerate him. It was the most difficult vote I ever cast, as he was a friend both political and personal, but it was a vote that I have never regretted, because it was the right thing to do. When all the party allegiances, the to-ing and fro-ing and the whipping and everything else is over, at the end of the day—I hope this does not sound too folksy, Mr Speaker—we all need to be able to look in the mirror, and at our families, our friends and our constituents, and say, “I always tried to do the right thing. I may not always have done so, but I always tried.”

I think the right thing for the Government to do is to withdraw their amendment. The mood of the House is incredibly clear. We heard wise advice from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), a former Attorney General and a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee; I do not think anyone could refer to him as a partial politician in this place. His integrity speaks for itself—as does that of the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds).

Anybody with a partial hearing of political interpretation will have gleaned the mood of the House: while respecting national security and other issues, which is a perfectly legitimate concern of the Government, this House vests in the Intelligence and Security Committee, to be discharged by senior Members of this House and the other place—Privy Counsellors all—the duties that those of us who are not Privy Counsellors or on that Committee cannot do for potential security reasons. We vest our faith and trust in that Committee, and it has never leaked. The Government can therefore follow that path in good faith and with trust. I hope that a manuscript amendment will be both forthcoming and accepted by you, Mr Speaker.

The hon. Member for Forest of Dean mentioned party politicking on this issue, and I am afraid I disagree with him on that; I do not think there has been any. I agree far more with my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith). Take away the party tags, the labels and the rosettes, and this is something that, for the vast majority of our fellow citizens, speaks to the operation of the state, the effectiveness of this place and the reliance our fellow citizens can put upon us in this place to do the right thing in difficult times, even when it is difficult to do so. Members on the Government Benches should talk to their Whips, use the usual channels and ask the Government to withdraw their amendment.

Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, does he agree that the amendment as drawn would, in effect, just throw a cloak over the very issues that many right hon. and hon. Members of this House want to see dealt with, and that the way to resolve those sensitive issues is simply to engage the Intelligence and Security Committee? Is that not the best way forward?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Why else would we have an Intelligence and Security Committee with that remit? It is not as if we are retrospectively trying to establish a Committee of the House to do a specific job. It exists to do this sort of job, among other things. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench have listened.

On Monday, in response to my question on his statement, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the House that it would be much better to deal with the removal of Lord Mandelson’s title via the procedures and Standing Orders of the House of Lords than by legislation. He also told the House—in complete and utter sincerity at the time, I am sure—that it would require a complex hybrid Bill, which was not an analysis I shared. My understanding is that a simple Bill to amend section 1(2) of the Life Peerages Act 1958 to apply a cessation date to the honour of a life peerage would be all that was required. We have passed important legislation for Northern Ireland and other issues in a day’s sitting before when the mood of the House was clear.

I think the Prime Minister indicated today at Prime Minister’s questions that he had tasked his team—his officials—with drafting legislation. There is an appetite for urgency in this place, and allowing this issue to suppurate and drip will not be the answer. I ask the Minister in his summing up—or, if he wishes to intervene on me now—to give us a timetable as to when this House will see the Bill and to confirm that Government time will be found to take it through in a single day. That would be very helpful.

There are many questions on the behaviour of Mandelson that are unanswered and that need to be answered, but I welcome that the Government have promised to remove his peerage. That is right. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that a Bill should also come before this House to remove Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of succession?

I think, Mr Speaker, that we usually prefer for matters relating to those sorts of things not to be dealt with on the Floor of the House.

To help the House, let me say that because this now relates to a person who is not a member of the royal family, the situation is completely different.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hospital pass has just gone through the shredder. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, in all candour: yes. The likelihood of Mr Windsor ever putting a crown on his head is so remote as to be unimaginable, but for clarity and probity, I agree with him. I do, however, think we should deal with the matter in hand today.

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has written to Sir Chris Wormald, the Cabinet Secretary, asking him to appear before us. This follows a letter we wrote last October, to which we received a reply on the 30th of that month. The way of vetting a political appointment to be an ambassador was woefully inadequate. I welcome the fact that No. 10 has put in place new procedures, but that is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. It is either naivety or, worse, some form of complicity that the legitimate and obvious questions that should have arisen for any political appointee, but particularly Peter Mandelson, were not asked. I think it is extraordinary that the views of the Foreign Secretary were not invited on this appointment. I also find it very strange that vetting is undertaken only after the announcement of an appointment—that is a most bizarre way of dealing with things. I am pleased that the Government have realised that things need to change.

My hon. Friend is right to look at the process, but I do not think that it provides any cover for the Prime Minister’s decision. If the story in the New Statesman today is true, the Prime Minister was directly sent a report that

“clearly stated that Mandelson’s relationship with the paedophile continued after his conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution. It contained links to photographs of Mandelson with the paedophile, and drew particular attention to evidence that Mandelson had stayed at Epstein’s apartment while he was in prison.”

Candour has been talked about a lot today. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should hear from the Minister today whether that report in the New Statesman is true and whether the Prime Minister received that report? That takes away any idea of the extent of the relationship—the extent of the relationship is as laid out in that report.

My right hon. Friend is right, but if this motion is passed unamended this afternoon, all those papers will be available either to this place or to the ISC, and then we will know.

We are all aware of these sorts of things. Somebody will set a hare running at some point and we will say that we think this, that and the other. I have heard, for example, that Peter Mandelson was at Labour party headquarters each and every day in the run-up to the general election and that he was intimately involved with the selection of candidates—I can see a couple of Labour Members nodding as if to say, “Yes, I knew exactly what was going to happen”—and that in essence, the ambassadorial position was a thank you present: “Thank you for getting us back into No. 10—here’s your final gift from the public purse. Go and be our ambassador to Washington.”

In the general scheme of things, that is perfectly fine, but I think we deserve to see the paperwork that shows the paper trail. It is not unusual for political appointments to be made in that way, but that is in the abstract. In this specific case, it is unconscionable, and it is surprising given the fact that the Prime Minister flaunts, with some degree of credibility, his previous role as a senior lawyer and his ability to tell right from wrong. And by God, did we not hear that when he was Leader of the Opposition? Whenever a Conservative committed even a minor misdemeanour—if they put something plastic in the paper recycling box—by God it was a hanging offence: “They should all be taken outside, hanged, drawn and quartered” and so on.

Being in government is obviously different, but the reason the appointment of Mandelson befuddles everybody is that the argument that the Prime Minister has deployed is that the full extent of the relationship and friendship with Epstein was not known. The fact that there was any relationship with Epstein post conviction should have precluded Mandelson’s appointment. Why? Because an ambassador is not a representative of the Government. The position is His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States of America, so it brings in the impartiality of the Crown as well. There are therefore serious questions to ask about the operation of No. 10 and about how the Prime Minister exercises his judgment.

There does seem to be amnesia about this. When Mandelson was made ambassador, it was well known that he continued the relationship with the convicted paedophile post his conviction, and there were simpering emails already in the public domain saying things like, “Oh darling one, all should be forgiven.” The suggestion that it only recently became unacceptable for him to be ambassador is wrong. If Labour Members want to suggest that it was not well known, let me tell them that colleagues like me raised it in this Chamber on the day that he was appointed, and I was greeted with jeers and boos from the Labour Benches. No one said, “Absolutely, maybe there are concerns”. Should that amnesia perhaps be reconsidered?

Order. It is not me who will say when it is 4 o’clock, but I would gently say that this is Opposition day and the Opposition may want to extend the time available for this debate. I am very bothered that not many people will get in given the rate that we are going at. I leave it to Members to take care of time.

Conscious of that, Mr Speaker, let me say that I agree with my hon. Friend, and then conclude with two asks of the Government. First, will they confirm when a Bill will be introduced and that it will be passed speedily in both Houses before the Easter recess; and, secondly, although it is not my job to speak on behalf of those on the Labour Back Benches, I ask the Government to read the Chamber. Allowing the Government Chief Whip and others to press this amendment would, as the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) has said, send such a bad message to our constituents and to victims—not just of Epstein and Mandelson but to the wider victim community—that when push comes to shove, officialdom somehow or another circles the wagons and finds a vehicle to filter and to protect.

As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said, the best thing that we can have is transparency. The best disinfectant is sunlight. We need as much sunlight on these papers as possible, and we can start to make some progress this afternoon. Do not press the amendment and publish the Bill.

Let me first take a moment for us to remember those women and girls who were silenced, marginalised, degraded, objectified and discarded—collateral damage in the pursuit of pleasure for a network of men who thought that the rules did not apply to them. The correspondence between these men from across the political spectrum, from Steve Bannon to Noam Chomsky, is soaked in misogyny, and it is the misogyny that we women do not actually hear on a day-to-day basis. I am talking about the casual, relentless women hatred shared between men.

We know well the misogyny directed directly at us. There are many of us here in this House who work hard to expose that misogyny as we are witness to it, but the misogyny hidden from us needs exposing. That is why the transparency to which the Government say they are committed is so important. If we say we believe in tackling power imbalances and in ensuring that the law works for everyone, we cannot stay silent, and the hatred and the offences must be seen so that they can be tackled.

One man in particular is apparently guilty by association rather than actually involved in those particular acts, and he is the one who is the focus of the debate today, but it is also true that what has been revealed from these documents is that there appears to have been, over a number of years, horrendous breaches of trust and potential criminal activity amounting to misconduct in public office. I would like this Government, this House and our political class to take this moment to acknowledge that, while this is an extreme and egregious example of an individual believing that the rules do not apply to them, such behaviour cannot continue without the consent—active or passive—of others, and that this is the moment that we will agree that passive or active consent to allow such behaviour in public life will end.

I have raised the point about the Prime Minister, but there is a broader point here. Lord Mandelson was appointed to the Lords. For 115 years, Labour has been promising to get rid of the Lords. The Conservatives and other parties have appointed people to the Lords who we should be getting rid of. Please—is now not the time to take the opportunity to scrap the Lords?

I accept that there are wider constitutional implications for what we are talking about right now, and I will turn to some of those later. We also know, however, that there is a long track record across politics, not just across the political spectrum but across decades, where people’s talent—predominantly men’s talent—has been seen as a justification for appointment, regardless of their behaviour or their character, and we do need to consider behaviour and character.

I think that, by refusing to believe the victims over Jeffrey Epstein, Mandelson is an example of misogyny, and I think the Prime Minister, by deciding to appoint someone who remained friends with Epstein, is an example of passive consent. Does the hon. Member agree?

I will continue to explain in my remarks why I think this is a moment where we need to draw a line under that passive and active consent that we have seen for far too long across all political spectrums and across the decades, where people have turned a blind eye to bad behaviour.

We need to know, and to apply our judgment to, whether somebody is suitable for public life not just because of their talent, but because of their probity. We have many systems in this place, in our Government and in our wider political environment that are supposed to protect the public and our institutions from people who do not have the appropriate probity for public life.

My concern and the concern of many of my constituents, of people across the country and of my colleagues in this House is that, in some ways, individual people’s apparent talent for politics is seen as something that justifies turning a blind eye to their character, their associations and their judgment. I know and understand the importance of acting to ensure that national security is not put at risk. I only wish that we could all be so sure that the former ambassador to the United States had similar concerns.

I am less convinced by the language of “international relations” in the Government’s amendment. I seek clarity from the Minister for the justification for such a broad term, especially when, by the very virtue of the nature of the relationships that should be under scrutiny via the transparency to which the Government say they are committed, the relationship between our country and others may well have been exposed to risk. Will the Minister explain how the Government will distinguish between material that is prejudicial to national security and international relations, and that which is not?

There are deeply concerning reports in the media that the Government amendment is a convenient catch-all to prevent material from being published. For that reason, I seek assurances from the Minister that the Government have a plan to facilitate maximum transparency by handing over relevant sensitive documents and communications to the relevant Select Committees. The Paymaster General said that there should be scrutiny by the ISC of the Cabinet Secretary’s approach. However, that is not the same as the Committee being given the material and having full oversight of it.

I am sympathetic to the expressions of concern by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop). People voted Labour for change. People are convinced that we are all the same. This is a moment when probity in public life is on the line. The Government can go one of two ways: we can have a culture of certain people being “worth the risk”, or decide to draw a line under that, and agree that there will no longer be situations in which individuals, because of connections or talent, are exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of us.

In this Chamber, just under three hours ago, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom made a long overdue and welcome admission. For months, he, various Labour Members, Ministers and members of the Cabinet have told us all to ignore our eyes and our ears. The Prime Minister has said that he was not aware of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, but today he admitted at that Dispatch Box that he did.

Order. I can inform Members that this debate will now run until 7 pm to allow more Members to speak. Sorry for the interruption, Stephen Flynn.

Four hours is plenty for me, Mr Speaker.

This is a dark and disgusting day for this Chamber and for each and every person living on these isles, because their Prime Minister admitted that he knew about the relationship. Of course he knew; in The Guardian in 2023, Rowena Mason wrote about the court documents that had been released in the United States of America, which referenced the fact that Jeffrey Epstein had maintained a relationship with two individuals prominent in British public life. Members will know them. They were Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister knew, just as he knew when Jim Pickard of the Financial Times asked him in January 2024 about the relationship. He has seen the photos that each of us in this Chamber has seen of Peter Mandelson in luxury accommodation in New York alongside Jeffrey Epstein.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not, I am afraid.

The Prime Minister knew that the two had a relationship, yet he ignored it. He ignored each and every victim of Jeffrey Epstein when he chose to appoint Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States of America.

Will the right hon. Member give way?

No, I will not.

Today’s debate is important because we will get to the bottom of what Peter Mandelson did—I will come to that—but also because we in this Chamber cannot forgive or forget the judgment of the Prime Minister when he chose to make that political choice. It was a choice that Labour Members have told us repeatedly was a political risk. It was not a political risk. It was a betrayal of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, because Peter Mandelson knew when he continued the relationship that the man was a convicted sex offender.

Will the right hon. Member give way?

I said I will not. The hon. Member can sit down and listen to my speech today, as his colleagues should have done on many occasions in months gone past.

The Prime Minister has let down not only himself but his office and the public—a public to whom he promised change. He said that he would tread lightly on their lives. Do any of the public believe that today? Do any of them have confidence in his judgment? Are the Labour party seriously saying to the public that they still have confidence in the Prime Minister’s judgment—that we can trust him to make the big decisions, when he cannot even accept that a relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein should have stopped Peter Mandelson becoming the ambassador to the United States of America?

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. I really do think that he is misreading the mood of the House. We are trying to find consensus on what is being debated. He talks about articles in The Guardian and what was in the public domain, but he will know that last year, John Swinney stayed in Peter Mandelson’s house in Washington. He does not always stay with ambassadors, but he chose to then. If John Swinney knew about this—it was in the public domain—why did he stay with Peter Mandelson, and why did he not answer questions on this yesterday, when he was asked them five times?

What a desperate and foolish intervention. I would have let the hon. Member intervene earlier, if I had known that was coming. He knows fine well that the First Minister of Scotland does not appoint the ambassador to the United States of America. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom does. I thought that for once we had consensus in this House, and agreed that the Prime Minister lacked judgment by appointing Mandelson. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member disagree and think that the Prime Minister should have appointed him?

This debate is about trying to find agreement on how the information can be released into the public domain. It is not about grandstanding for social media or making the front page of The National. We are trying to take the country forward.

Yet another one—the hon. Member excels himself.

On Monday, the Prime Minister was at the Dispatch Box, and I asked him two questions. I asked him to make an unreserved apology to each and every victim of Epstein for his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson. He chose not to. I then asked him if he agreed, at that moment, that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a police investigation, because I had just reported him to the police. He chose not to agree; he said:

“Only the SNP could go about this in this way”.—[Official Report, 2 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 34.]

Here we are, two days later, and Peter Mandelson is being investigated. Importantly, the Prime Minister has still not said sorry. That is an abdication of his responsibility, as he has had numerous occasions to apologise. It is another betrayal of those victims.

We must support this motion to ensure that the treachery of Peter Mandelson is not ignored, and to properly understand why the Prime Minister took the decision that he took. Let none of us be in any doubt: these discussions about manuscript amendments and motions, and how we decide on anything, will not matter as much to the public as the Prime Minister’s lack of judgment. That will lead to his departure from No. 10.

Being a Member of Parliament is a huge privilege that brings with it a huge responsibility—a responsibility that Peter Mandelson made an absolute mockery of. He let down those on our Benches, this entire House, and the country more widely. His arrogance, sense of entitlement and abuse of power was disgusting to see, but what I am really worried about is this: this story of women and how they are let down is being watched by women across the world, and they are seeing their story of abuse through the lens of powerful men—Prime Ministers, former princes and politicians. Women victims must be at the centre of whatever happens next.

I am glad that the paedophile Epstein’s files are being released, and I am glad that there is cross-party consensus that more information should be made public, and that anyone who knows anything should declare it. However, I will not lie; I am angry that victims and survivors have had their anonymity ripped away because of the careless way that their information was handled. I am angry that men trafficked, exploited and raped women, while others turned a blind eye at best, and covered it up at worst.

However, I am also unbelievably, incredibly grateful. We are here today because women used their voice. They were brave. They are not alone, and they were never alone in their abuse. At the time when they were being trafficked in the most horrendous way, my community had the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe, often because older men thought that young, vulnerable women were absolutely fair game. I feel a huge responsibility to use my voice, and I encourage others to use theirs, but while speaking up is so important, it is sometimes so difficult that the cost is life itself. That stays with me. I want to use my platform to share the words of Virginia Giuffre:

“I am sorry to say that for all that’s happened, more action is needed. Much more. Because some people still think Epstein was an anomaly, an outlier. And those people are wrong. While the sheer number of victims Epstein preyed upon may put him in a class by himself, he was no outlier. The way he viewed women and girls—as playthings to be used and discarded—is not uncommon among certain powerful men who believe they are above the law. And many of those men still go about their daily lives, enjoying the benefits of their power. Do you know why the world is as bad as it is? It is because people think only about their own business, and won’t trouble themselves to stand up for the oppressed, nor bring the wrong-doers to light…My doctrine is this, that if we see cruelty or wrong that we have the power to stop, and do nothing, we make ourselves sharers in the guilt. I hope for a world in which predators are punished, not protected; victims are treated with compassion, not shamed; and powerful people face the same consequence as everyone else. I yearn, too, for a world in which perpetrators face more shame than their victims do and where anyone who’s been trafficked can confront their abusers when they are ready, no matter how much time has passed. We don’t live in this world yet.”

I say: thank you. I thank her, and I know that we will use the power that we collectively have in this House to right historic wrongs, and that we can start talking about what is happening to women and girls across the world and challenge it together, because shame must change sides.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). Actually, in writing my speech, I had people like her in mind: the Labour MPs who I know are genuinely passionate about tackling violence against women and girls. They use that passion to criticise us, and what we did or did not do in government—and I respect that—and sometimes to criticise their own Government. It is those MPs that the Prime Minister is trying to throw under the bus today. It is those MPs who I do not think would ever have agreed to the judgment the Prime Minister made, that it was “worth the risk”. This is not some hidden or secret position that the Government took; a Minister said on the record in an interview that the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was “worth the risk”.

What does that mean? What are we talking about here? What was it worth? It was worth disrespecting, denigrating and betraying the victims of Jeffrey Epstein by appointing someone who chose to associate with a convicted paedophile. That is the risk that the Prime Minister chose to take. I do not think it is a risk that the hon. Member for Bolsover would have taken, or the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), or many of those other Members; they would have made a different judgment.

There is a pattern here, and those of us on the Opposition side of the House know what it is like. When Prime Ministers are weak and struggling to maintain their authority, they will go further and further in doing things that their own Members do not want them to do, in order to save their own skin. Members can come to regret supporting that.

My hon. Friend talks about it being worth the risk, but this is not just about denigrating those victims; it is also about those Labour Back Benchers that the Prime Minister is marching up the hill. It is worth the risk for him to march them up the hill, then do a U-turn later and finally admit after many months that he knew all along?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), and I say this as a Back Bencher who stood up to my Government because I realised what was happening and was not willing to be dragged into those situations. I do not speak from a position of self-righteousness. I have been in that position and I did what I thought was the right thing at the time. I suggest to Labour Members that they think very carefully about this, because we had an admission today. After months of trying to get it out of the Prime Minister, it was drawn out of him by the Leader of the Opposition that he knew that Peter Mandelson had continued his association with a convicted paedophile when he appointed him as ambassador.

I want to reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s interventions during the course of the debate, which have added to it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) earlier suggested a manuscript amendment relating to the Intelligence and Security Committee. If that was to come forward, would he support it?

I would like to see the detail of it, but that was a helpful intervention from the former Deputy Prime Minister. I think there is a way forward for us, potentially.

I also want to highlight that it was not just this one issue of whether the Prime Minister knew that Mandelson was in touch with a paedophile. We also know what was publicly reported. Before Mandelson was appointed, Epstein was discussing Government business from jail, if we can believe the reporting. What more could we have known? We are Five Eyes partners with the United States. We share the most secret and confidential information with the United States, so what was preventing the Government from approaching the US Department of Justice prior to the public release of these emails and asking whether there was anything in them that we needed to know before we appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador? We could have asked those questions, and I would like the Minister to say whether we did ask them and to give us any response we might have had. We are talking about what has been in the public domain, and the Government could have had that information beforehand.

Does the hon. Gentleman share my opinion that Labour Members just do not seem to get it? There is rising anger right across the country, and it is directed at Jeffrey Epstein and all the things that have been going on, but this is now primarily becoming focused on the Prime Minister. His position is becoming increasingly untenable but they are not seeing what is happening in the commentariat and the press. This is happening in real time.

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.

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.”

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.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to tell us at the Dispatch Box whether the New Statesman report today is true—that the Prime Minister was directly told that Mandelson stayed in Epstein’s flat while he was in prison, and therefore that the extent of that relationship was absolutely clear to the Prime Minister when he made the decision to make that appointment? I know—because I spoke to some of them at the time—that so many Labour Members were uncomfortable but felt obliged to go along with it.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there are many other questions that we want answered by the Government. That is why we want to pass this Humble Address so that we have access to all the information. We have heard from ISC members and other Select Committee Chairs about how we can do that in a way that protects national security, so the idea that we cannot do so without breaching national security is complete nonsense.

I ask Labour Members: what will the public think? How will this look to ordinary members of the public? Labour Members may well put forward technical arguments, and the Government might brief on various reasons why, because of technicalities, they cannot pass this motion and how it is all too difficult, but the public will come away thinking that some Labour MPs—not all of them—are willing to collude and support a Prime Minister who exercised catastrophically poor judgment at the expense of victims of violence against women and girls. It was the stated aim of this Government to tackle that and have it as a key tenet. That will reflect poorly on them, and the public will know exactly what has gone on here: a rescue operation for a flailing Prime Minister who, I think, is on his way out. When Prime Ministers are on their way out, they fight and kick and drag other people along with them. If Labour MPs allow the Prime Minister to do that, they will come to regret it, because once he is gone, he will move on and do new things, and they will still be MPs seeking re-election at the next election, having been tarnished and damaged by the things he did to save his own skin.

Of course, the thoughts of everyone in this House are with the victims and survivors of Epstein’s appalling, horrific abuse, but the motion we are discussing focuses on something very particular: not just what is known now or what has been revealed in the past few days—conduct for which Peter Mandelson needs to face the toughest consequences—but what was known at the time of his appointment to the hugely important role of this country’s ambassador to the United States of America.

In 2023, the Financial Times reported that:

“in June 2009, when he was the UK business secretary, Mandelson stayed at Epstein’s lavish townhouse in Manhattan, while the financier was in prison for soliciting prostitution from a minor.”

That was 18 months before the Prime Minister decided to appoint Peter Mandelson to the role. At Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister said that he knew before appointing Peter Mandelson that he had maintained a relationship with Epstein. People not just in this Chamber but outside it are asking how on earth, given what was known and what has been admitted was known, did Peter Mandelson end up being appointed by the Prime Minister as ambassador to the United States of America.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it appears that the Prime Minister turned a blind eye to what was already known about Peter Mandelson’s association with the appalling sex offender Jeffrey Epstein because, effectively, he wanted to cosy up to Donald Trump? Does he not agree that it looks very much like the wording of the Government’s amendment—

“except papers prejudicial to…international relations”

—effectively says that the Government do not want to release anything that might affect the Prime Minister’s ability to cosy up to Donald Trump? Does he therefore agree that the Government must withdraw their amendment to the motion? Furthermore, does he agree that we need to do more than just deal with this; we also need to address the lack of public trust in politics and in this House? To do so, we need to deal with things like political donations, the pollution of misinformation, and the urgent need for reform of the other place and, indeed, of electoral mechanisms in this Chamber?

I agree with the hon. Member. If the Government are foolish enough to push their amendment, which I do not think they will, I will of course vote against it because it would operate to stop us getting the full and complete truth about this matter. I will come on to some other points and make some progress, as I know that other colleagues want to speak.

The public are asking how on earth Peter Mandelson ended up being appointed by the Prime Minister to the role of ambassador to the United States of America, given what was known and what was in the public domain, and given that the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box today that he did know.

Something that must come into this—and it is not a distraction—is political culture. By that, I mean the political culture that has developed within the Labour party. That might seem tangential, but how have we ended up in a situation where a nasty factionalism has operated to such an extent that the Prime Minister and his advisers have promoted and protected Peter Mandelson when so many honest, decent Labour people around the country have been unreasonably punished and prevented from standing for office? We have all heard of Labour councillors who were not allowed to stand for council, perhaps because they had liked a tweet from a member of the Green party or some such. We all saw how Andy Burnham was prevented from even standing for Parliament, and that was pushed by the Prime Minister. Yet at the same time, Peter Mandelson was promoted.

Ways were found round other people standing for fairly minor positions, but a way was found by the Prime Minister and his advisers to push Peter Mandelson over the line and into the office of ambassador to the USA. The reason for that, or one of the reasons, is quite simple: a nasty political factionalism. The reason that Peter Mandelson is looked upon so favourably by the Prime Minister and the people around him is that he made his name kicking the left of the Labour party, and boasting about it. I believe that, at the very least, that clouded their judgment, and it meant that they could find ways around what was in the public domain—find excuses to push him over the line.

When this matter was discussed some months ago in the Chamber, I asked how Lord Mandelson could retain the Labour Whip, given what was known, while hon. Friends were suspended for voting to add the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap to the Government’s programme in the King’s Speech.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government are serious about their commitment to transparency, internal Labour party materials and communications of any shape or form that involve Peter Mandelson must be preserved, released and included in any upcoming or ongoing investigation?

I agree with my hon. Friend’s important point. I say for the record that she was treated terribly by the party, by people around the Prime Minister and by people in the party bureaucracy, while those same people found reasons to turn a blind eye to or make excuses for what was known about Peter Mandelson.

Does the hon. Member agree that, at a time when trust across the UK is at a low, what the public—and victims and survivors—out there will see is the wagons being circled, no matter which party is involved? Trust is the real casualty today. Does the hon. Member agree that that is what is at stake?

I totally agree with the hon. Member’s powerful point. It is no wonder that trust in politicians is at an all-time low. This affair shines a light on the role of the rich and powerful, and the relationship between some at the top of politics and some of the richest and most powerful men in the world. Peter Mandelson has always had, I would say, an unhealthy fascination with the super-rich and the powerful. After all, it was he who said that he was

“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.

In this serious debate, we need full honesty. As I alluded to earlier, one of the main reasons that Peter Mandelson was let off the hook and eased into one of the most important offices that he could be given by the Prime Minister was his role in internal Labour party factional affairs—that is just completely wrong. Let me quote Peter Mandelson:

“I work every single day in some small way to bring forward the end of his tenure in office.”

He was referring, of course, to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) while he was leader of the Labour party, at a time when Lord Mandelson was a Labour party member. That is the reason Mandelson was let off the hook. People were so grateful for the job that he did again and again to kick the left of the Labour party that they—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way shortly. I think the Prime Minister would be delighted if I gave way now, because I am coming to an important point.

The reward for the factional role that Mandelson boasted about and revelled in was a blind eye being turned, even though the Prime Minister knew about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The reality is that Peter Mandelson would not have made it on to a panel of Labour party local election candidates, or as a Labour party parliamentary candidate at a general election, yet because of his factional role and his relationship with the super-rich—which stinks, quite frankly—he was eased into the position of ambassador to the United States of America. That is the truth, whether or not people choose to admit it.

This important debate deals with corruption on an international scale, and with women and girls who have been victimised over years. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to lift his eyes above factional Labour politics and to focus on the issues at hand?

The hon. Gentleman may not have understood the point that I am making—perhaps that is the Liberal position on these things; I do not know. What I am talking about is the fact that victims of sexual abuse were put second to factional politics. The point I am making is that this dirty, grubby internal factional behaviour overrode those considerations—so, in fact, I do not disagree with him. That is the point that I am making: the lives of survivors should have been put first. The risk that Peter Mandelson posed to national security, and his deep inappropriateness for the role of ambassador to the US, should have been put first. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me, but that is the very point that I am making.

The public deserve the truth—the full truth. They need to know who argued for Peter Mandelson despite what was known about his relationship with Epstein, who argued for him to be pushed over the line into the role of ambassador to the United States, who warned against it, and what role the advisers around the Prime Minister played. That is fundamentally important. We cannot have a situation that the public quite rightly view as totally unacceptable. We need to know exactly how this happened and nothing should prevent that, because the public are completely baffled and disgusted.

The point has been made that we need to clean up our politics. Of course, that means no jobs for the boys when they are deeply inappropriate and deeply unsuitable for them, and it means looking at the role of big money in politics. Mandelson was infatuated with the rich and powerful in the same way that he was infatuated with the factional politics within the Labour party. Those things resulted in his being appointed to the position of ambassador despite what was known.

A manuscript amendment may be tabled and it may satisfy Members on both sides of the House—I do not know—but no manuscript amendment will rub away this crisis. No manuscript amendment and nothing that can be said in this House will remove the fact that the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America, despite what was known at the time, is literally indefensible. It is really telling that not a single Member on either side of the House has tried to defend that today, although some have defended it previously.

I come back to the point that we cannot have appointments in this country suborned as a result of people’s friendships or the role that they have played in internal party factions. That puts the national interest at risk and it can put national security at risk. The Prime Minister said “country first, party second”. What we cannot have is faction first, country second. I think that that is what happened with the indefensible decision to appoint Peter Mandelson to this important role, despite the fact that it was in the public domain that he had continued his relations with Epstein while that man was in prison for soliciting child prostitution.

No matter which party we represent, no matter what deeply held differences we have and no matter how different our beliefs, everyone in this Chamber—indeed, anyone who serves the public—does so in the interests of this nation. We all signed up to serve our country, to do the best by Britain. Peter Mandelson has broken that vow.

From politicians to civil servants, we all commit to the Nolan principles of public life. We promise to serve the public with integrity, objectivity, selflessness, accountability, openness and honesty. The principles state, without qualification:

“Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest…Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work…Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner.”

Peter Mandelson has broken every one of those principles.

Every single Member of this House and the other place swears an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. Before we take our seats, Members of Parliament stand in this very Chamber and swear to

“be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”

In years gone by, that Oath was to Her late Majesty the Queen. It is an oath to the Crown, but it is also an oath to this country. It is a solemn pledge of loyalty to this nation and its people. Peter Mandelson has betrayed that Oath and betrayed Britain, and the evidence is there for all to see in the Epstein files.

Peter Mandelson distributed critical sensitive material about this country and its affairs. He conspired to work with foreign elites against this country’s interests, and against the policy of the Government he served. He gave some of the most privileged information to some very privileged people with the means and power to wield it. His actions could be classed as disloyal and duplicitous even if the recipient of the information was of good standing, but in this case the recipient of Peter Mandelson’s leaks was a convicted paedophile. Privileged information was passed not only to a very privileged individual, but to a disgraced criminal—a grooming-gang master from a grooming gang for the powerful and elite. Perhaps in the fullness of time, Epstein will be viewed as one of the worst grooming-gang masters this planet has seen. In doing so, Peter Mandelson has disgraced himself. His actions and his lack of candour are shameful in the extreme.

But it is not Peter Mandelson’s actions that we should be concerned about. Earlier, I omitted one Nolan principle—the final one, which is leadership, and that is precisely what has been lacking from this Government since their formation. This Nolan principle requires public servants to

“challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.”

Why was Peter Mandelson’s behaviour not challenged by the Prime Minister before his appointment? Why was Peter Mandelson allowed to assume a key role when his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein was known?

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, grounded as it is in the Nolan principles. Does he agree that if the Prime Minister had appointed someone who went on to breach all the Nolan principles to a position as serious as that of ambassador to the United States, that would be a serious issue to deal with, but the fact is that he appointed a person who had already broken all the Nolan principles before his appointment, as well as doing so after it? I think that makes the Prime Minister’s position untenable.

My right hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister’s position, particularly after his remarks during Prime Minister’s questions earlier, raises serious questions about what he knew and when, and why on earth he made the appointment.

I have been doing this job as a Member of Parliament since 2017, and previously I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament for 10 years, so it is almost 20 years. Throughout that time, I have been aware of the rumours and speculation about Mandelson. Indeed, he was sacked from the Cabinet on two occasions for misconduct, and throughout his political life question marks have been raised about his credibility, his conduct and his scruples. Why was Peter Mandelson able to get away with distributing sensitive privileged information while in office? The questions over Peter Mandelson’s character, and his loyalty to this country, have to be answered.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I have been a Member of this place for longer than I care to remember, and throughout that time I have seen powerful men go unchallenged and cause havoc in our country as a result. He and I will want to change that for good, because this goes well beyond any partisan concern. Does he agree that it is therefore time to revisit the role of this House in scrutinising appointments, and particularly the capacity of Select Committees to object? Too many people have known for too long that a number of controversial characters are not fit for public office. It is time to bring the disinfectant of democracy back into that process—does the hon. Gentleman agree?

The obvious question that stems from the hon. Lady’s point is why on earth the Prime Minister made that appointment when there was so much information about the toxic nature of Peter Mandelson. What on earth was the Prime Minister doing? The Secretary of State for Business and Trade, a Cabinet member, was doing the rounds saying that it was “worth the risk”, so clearly, even in the higher echelons of the Cabinet—not least the Prime Minister—there were concerns about this appointment, yet nobody did anything about it. This individual, who had this association with a predator and grooming-gang master and was subsequently caught sharing sensitive information with him, should never have been anywhere near the important office of our ambassador to the United States.

There are so many questions that the Government need to answer, but there are crucial questions that the Prime Minister has to answer. For me, the Prime Minister’s conduct in this matter is completely unforgivable.

I place on record that my thoughts are with the women and girls who were victims of Epstein and his cronies. I am also deeply concerned for those who suffered incredible loss through the financial crisis in 2008.

This House is at its best when we can find common ground and put aside party politics for the good of our country, and I believe that we are seeing that today. As the deputy Chair of both the Standards Committee and the Privileges Committee, I take that responsibility seriously, and I believe colleagues would say that I always act without fear or favour. Standards in public life and the Nolan principles are not optional to me; they guide my work every day. As politicians, every single one of us in this place must be guided by them every single day.

Our national security is of paramount importance, and I know that nobody in this House would want to undermine that. During the Hillsborough law debate, it was made clear that there are existing legal protections for national security. At moments like this, we are reminded of the importance of and the desperate need for the Hillsborough law and a duty of candour. During this debate, it has been clear that allowing the ISC to have oversight is unquestionably the way forward. At a time when public trust and confidence in politicians and politics are at an all-time low, we must individually and collectively lead the way and assure the public that there is no hiding place for those who seek to betray our country for their individual greed.

Mandelson has a chequered history in my party. Some might say that he has been like a cat with nine lives, being sacked from numerous positions. I cannot think of a more self-serving and self-absorbed politician than Peter Mandelson: a man who leaked market-sensitive information to a convicted paedophile and sex offender while the people of this country queued outside banks and building societies, wondering if their life savings had gone; a man who has benefited so much from being in this nauseous, disgusting web that he cannot even remember his account being credited with $75,000; a man who had no respect for our national security and international relations, because his nose was firmly in the trough.

As a party, we must investigate the culture and those who have enabled Peter Mandelson to thrive for decades, constantly putting his own needs above those of our country and party. Leadership is about integrity, principle and vision. Those are the values of my Labour party, and we must embody them now more than ever.

I am really sad to say that I am ashamed of the amendment the Government tabled. We have to do much, much better. I implore my Government to withdraw their amendment and let the ISC deal with the issues, because that is the right thing to do. Therefore, if it is not withdrawn, I must with a heavy heart vote against my Government’s amendment. I wrote to the Chief Whip earlier today to let him know my intentions.

Rumours abound that a manuscript amendment will be tabled to bring forward something that Labour Members feel they can vote for. Does the hon. Lady agree that Labour Members should not forget the fact that the Government were willing to try to make them vote for the original amendment?

I think I have made it clear what I think of the Government amendment.

I will end by saying, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) did, that the Prime Minister said consistently during the general election campaign that we must always put country before party. He promised the country that this Labour Government would put country before party. I implore my Government to ensure that that is what they do today.

This debate is crucial and seminal, but first and foremost it must be about the victims of the horrible web that Epstein created —the abuse, abduction, raping and secret imprisonment of women, who were apparently flown in and out of major cities around the world for the convenience of rich and powerful men. It is utterly disgusting, depraved and abominable behaviour on every single level, and every Member who has called it out is absolutely right to do so.

Epstein was not revealed yesterday; he was not convicted last week; he was not convicted last year. He was first convicted 18 years ago. It is not as if his record was not extremely well known. It seems that we are debating it now only because of the inclusion of Peter Mandelson in the ghastly, nasty, vile, horrible web that they created.

We have a duty to do something important today, and I for one support the Opposition motion. I hope that we vote on it, rather than coming to some crabby deal between the Government and the Opposition through a manuscript amendment that would kick the whole thing into the long grass, a long way away, on the pretence that we cannot discuss these issues because that might affect security or international relations. Almost anything can affect international relations. It sounds to me like the Government simply trying to get out of things.

The question is fundamentally one for the Prime Minister, and it is a bit odd that he is not here for the debate. It is a bit odd that he has not spoken in the debate and that all he has done is say what he did today at Prime Minister’s Question Time. I cannot believe that, when he was about to appoint Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to Washington, he was not made fully aware of all of Peter Mandelson’s record. The Prime Minister would have known about the number of times that Peter Mandelson was forced to resign, even from the Tony Blair Government, because of his behaviour. He would have known Mandelson’s record as an EU Commissioner, and of his interesting relationship with global dealers in minerals and many other things. He would have known all of that, yet he still went ahead and appointed Mandelson as ambassador to Washington, apparently despite advice from the Foreign Office and others. What a shame, what a disgrace and what an appalling appointment to make. We do not even know whether Mandelson is still being paid by the Foreign Office.

Today, we have to be very stern and clear that there needs to be the fullest possible inquiry into all of this. Parliament is not competent to undertake this inquiry. The Cabinet Secretary and the civil service machine are not competent to do so. They have all been ensnared in this gilded, friendly web of Mandelson and his business, political and social contacts, where favours were done and contracts were apparently awarded. That ghastly company Palantir was trying to get hold of our national health service, apparently at the behest of Mandelson and others.

None of us here are competent to undertake that inquiry, which is why I intervened earlier—I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for giving way—on how it should be conducted. I think it has to be judicially led, independent and, for the most part, in the public eye—rather like when the Government were eventually forced to undertake the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war; that is the nearest parallel I can find—because it needs to expose the whole web that Mandelson created, and the power play that he operated within the civil service, the political establishment, the media and so much else.

The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) made a wonderful and very powerful speech. I thank him for his reference to what Mandelson said and did about me when I was Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Labour party. I can confirm to the House that under my leadership, Mandelson had no role, no influence and no part to play, because I do not trust the man or believe him. We need to make that very clear, because his role in British politics has been basically malign, undermining, and a very corrupting influence altogether.

When we look at our politics, we need to look at the role that big money, patronage, and turning a blind eye to crime play in it, because what we end up with is the national embarrassment of Mandelson being the ambassador to Washington, apparently on the basis that it was a risk worth taking in order to please Donald Trump. I do not know whether it succeeded in pleasing Donald Trump, but I did notice that at one of his endless press conferences, he could not remember who Mandelson was, so I am not sure how big the impact on the President was. Today is a day of shame for our politics—shame that we have got into the situation that has now been exposed.

Epstein was very, very powerful and very, very wealthy. Obviously, there needs to be more examination of that. More files have been uncovered than even Julian Assange managed to uncover through Wikileaks, and those files are going to be read and studied for a long time to come. There are lots of people all around the world who were dragged into this ghastly web based on dishonesty, lies, corruption and patronage. It is up to us as MPs to ’fess up to what has happened and to make sure there is a genuinely open, independent inquiry. When it comes to the standards of democracy we have in our society, and the levels of patronage that continue within it, we need to look at ourselves in the mirror.

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. He referred to the speech on factionalism made by his colleague on the Labour Benches, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), and made the point that we need an independent inquiry. One of the reasons for that is the number of staff from Labour Together, a factional group within the Labour party, who were appointed to civil service posts directly after the general election, including one—Jess Sargeant—who was appointed to the Cabinet Office’s propriety and constitution group. Labour Front Benchers should not say, “Don’t question the impartiality of the civil service.” They undermined the impartiality of the civil service, and we need an independent inquiry if the public are to know that we will get to the truth.

The right hon. Member makes a very fair point. Of course, the role of factions within parties is enormous—we have seen the role that Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney and others have played in sidelining, silencing and getting rid of very good, active people within the Labour party. Ultimately, it is the Labour party that loses as a result. I was extremely grateful for the role that Peter Mandelson played in the last election in Islington North: he came along and canvassed, and we won with 50% of the vote. That is the only useful thing he has done for a very long time that I can remember.

As I say, the right hon. Member’s point is a very fair one. It is right that Ministers and Governments should be able to bring political advisers into government with them. I remember discussing all this with Tony Benn in the 1970s; his view was that the civil service was intrinsically conservative and reactionary, and that there needed to be voices in there who were prepared to speak up for an alternative policy. I understand that point, but there has to be some kind of limit to the role of the political adviser in running the civil service—that is the Rubicon they must not cross. It is reasonable for them to advise the Minister, and they may have a very strong view or a view that is very different to that of the civil service. That is fair enough, but they should not be running the civil service. If we believe in an independent civil service, we must practise what we believe, even though it is probably quite uncomfortable for Ministers at various times.

I conclude by saying to the Government: do not come to some deal today just to get past today. Do not just get through today and think, “Wow, we got through that mess.” Members of the Government should not just put in their diaries, “Horrible day in the Commons, but tomorrow is another day. We’ll move on.” Let us have the open, public inquiry that is necessary. Let us have an understanding that we will turn the page on the era of patronage, and of close relationships between commercial pressure groups and lobbying—in the Lords, here, in the media and in our society. We should strive to build the open, fair, democratic society that we should all believe in. Those who suffered to get us universal suffrage and democracy did not do it so that we could develop a corrupt political system; they did it because they wanted an open, democratic, accountable system that benefited the poorest in society, as well as everybody else. Let us pass the motion today—no deals. We must inquire with real seriousness into the horror show that we have heard about.

Order. I must inform the House that a manuscript amendment to amendment (a) has been tabled by the Prime Minister, and I have selected it. For the convenience of the House, the manuscript amendment adds the following words to the end of the amendment:

“which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament”.

Copies of the manuscript amendment are now available in the Vote Office. I will call the Minister to move the amendment formally when winding up the debate.

I have been waiting for three hours to speak in this debate, and I wanted to talk about consensus, but it seems that my speech comes just one place too late in the list.

I will start by following on from the point that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made about recovering Mandelson’s pay, or at least stopping the pay being awarded to him. My constituents in Edinburgh South West want to go further and recover Mandelson’s pension, too. I thank the Opposition for bringing forward this debate. It is right that we debate these issues; people in my constituency certainly expect us to.

On consensus, I think where we are at is that the SNP, the Greens and the Lib Dems back the original Humble Address. I am not sure whether Your Party backs it —perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was just speaking on his own behalf. The Conservatives seem to accept that their Humble Address was a little reckless, and they want to support the involvement of the ISC. The Government have now shown leadership and brought that in. I think that is where we are at. [Interruption.] Members can feel free to correct me. Do they want to correct me? I am happy to take an intervention.

I expected to hear a little more today about what Mandelson may or may not have been getting up to during the era when Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown were trying to save our economy. I have huge respect for Gordon Brown. He is a man of real integrity. Alistair Darling is a predecessor in my seat, and he was a man of great integrity and someone whom I really respected. I think we can all agree that Mandelson was the complete opposite of those two great men and political leaders of my era. I do not doubt that once the criminal investigation is completed, there will be the public inquiry that some people are talking about.

It is right that we have focused on Mandelson’s links with Epstein today. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) made absolutely clear why that is so important.

The hon. Gentleman has just said that he thinks it is absolutely right that this House focuses on Peter Mandelson’s links with Jeffrey Epstein, and I welcome him for suddenly coming to that conclusion. Can I therefore ask him why the Prime Minister felt it necessary to appoint Mandelson as the US ambassador when—we know this after this afternoon’s revelation—the Prime Minister knew that Mandelson still had a relationship with Epstein?

That is why I am here, in this debate. I want these documents released, so that we can understand what decisions were made.

We know the decision that was made. Peter Mandelson was appointed ambassador when it was known that there was a relationship with a convicted paedophile, but it was “worth the risk”. So what is “worth the risk”? What level of relationship with a paedophile is acceptable? Is it coffee in the morning, or dinner at night? There should be no relationship with a convicted paedophile.

Hopefully the documents will explain what happened. Hopefully.

I know I do not look old enough, but I have been around for a long time. I can remember Mandelson’s first lap, and his second lap, when he went to the Lords. Now there is this third lap. My general perception of him is not of someone I would trust. I would not buy a second-hand car from him. However, that is based on my perception from the media. I have not seen the details of the vetting procedure that he went through. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), described the selection procedure, and I accept that this Government inherited it, but I thought it sounded like an absolute shambles. The steps that it involved were nothing like what I expected. I expected much more detail, and I hope that the documents that we are talking about will give us at least a bit more.

The hon. Member says that he would not buy a second-hand car from Mandelson. Would he have made him ambassador to the United States?

On the basis of my knowledge of him, absolutely not, but I have not seen the vetting documents, insubstantial as they appear to be.

Given that—rightly, I think—the hon. Gentleman would not have appointed Peter Mandelson ambassador to the United States of America, does he think that the Prime Minister made the right decision, and will he ever again have confidence that the Prime Minister can make the right decision on any other national security issue?

At lunchtime, during Prime Minister’s Question Time, we heard at length from the Prime Minister that we will release this information, so that people have a chance to look at it. We can speculate, but today’s debate is about releasing the information into the public domain, so that people can be reassured that the right decision has been made, and if it has not, we can question it.

My hon. Friend was here when I said that we should not only deal with this situation—I am with those who were not happy about the original amendment —but also think about what we can change fundamentally. This is not the first time we have seen controversial people appointed to positions. Does my hon. Friend, as a relatively new Member, share my interest in learning from other jurisdictions around the world? For example, there could be pre-appointment hearings before Select Committees, which could object to shortlists. Could we not toughen up our role as eyes and ears looking out for what good democracy practice looks like?

The vetting procedure, as described by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, seemed so insubstantial. My hon. Friend is right: we have to do much better. I am recruiting a community engagement officer, and it struck me that we exercised more rigour in checking the background of that person, although I accept that I may not have understood the procedure that was described.

It is right that we have focused on Mandelson’s links with Epstein, but if Mandelson had not been mentioned in the data that was released at the weekend, perhaps we would have been speaking about Andrew Windsor and Sarah Ferguson today. They are, perhaps, the winners in that regard.

Earlier, I was guilty of saying that the arguments that the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) presented showed that he had misread the room, but he was right in one respect. He was right to say that Mandelson was a traitor—and I hope that he meant not just a traitor to the United Kingdom, but a traitor to the survivors of Epstein’s sexual abuse—and, in fact, survivors of sexual abuse everywhere.

I think that the residents of Edinburgh South West, and everyone else, expect us to work together on this, and to reach consensus, and hopefully we can. I am still not sure whether the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and the Greens are on board, but I think we are moving much closer to one another. [Interruption.] My apologies. It seemed that they wanted to back the original Humble Address, rather than agreeing to the involvement of the ISC in the process; that was my understanding.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to clarify. In my speech, I said explicitly, from the Lib Dem Front Bench, that I welcomed the Minister’s openness to the ISC being part of this process.

I am grateful for the correction. Perhaps I was not listening quite as carefully as I should have, so I really do thank the hon. Lady.

I end by thanking our Front Benchers for listening to the arguments of Members from right across the Chamber, for showing a bit of leadership, and for hopefully bringing us together with some consensus.

The hon. Gentleman’s speech is coming across to me as quite miraculous, and not in a good way. He is claiming that his Front Benchers have shown leadership this afternoon. Let us remind the House exactly what has happened: his party’s leadership and Front Benchers have changed their amendment to the motion, because they knew that Government Members would not have voted for it.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

We have heard some very powerful speeches in this debate. It is a credit to this House that we are discussing this issue and the appalling behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein in a way that is not happening in Washington. However, what we have heard in the last few days has been truly shocking. There have been the photos, the emails, and the revelations of the very close nature of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which raise questions of potential criminality, and even treason.

The House is asking how it was that somebody who was already established, who had already had to resign twice from Government in disgrace, who was the subject of questions about his performance in the European Commission, and who was known to have maintained a very close friendship with a convicted paedophile, ever came to be regarded as an appropriate appointee to the position of ambassador in Washington. That was the critical issue that the Foreign Affairs Committee was anxious to examine. We repeatedly asked that Peter Mandelson come before the Committee; he did not. We were told eventually that we had had an opportunity to speak to him briefly over breakfast when we were in Washington, and that was sufficient. It was not sufficient. We were not able to ask him any of our questions.

We did subsequently have the opportunity to ask those questions of the Cabinet Secretary and the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office. The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), has already set out some of the issues that were raised, but I think it is worth repeating that we were told that Lord Mandelson’s appointment process had three stages. On the first stage, because this was a political appointment at the direct instruction of the Prime Minister, there was no interview panel, and there was not the “fireside chat” that would normally take place between an appointing Minister and a candidate. Instead, the Foreign Office was told that this was the wish of the Prime Minister, and Lord Mandelson was asked to fill in a conflict of interest form, so that there could be an understanding of private interests that “might” conflict with his position.

The Prime Minister made a huge deal about the process that had been gone through when he answered questions from the Leader of the Opposition earlier today. If I understand it correctly, the process was that the Prime Minister wanted Peter Mandelson.

That was made absolutely clear right from the start. Indeed, the permanent under-secretary described this as a political appointment, which was made on the direct instruction of the Prime Minister.

I want to go through the three stages. The first stage was the conflicts of interest form. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said, this essentially consisted of Peter Mandelson being asked to fill in a form and to choose what to put on it, and there was no subsequent questioning about anything that did not appear on his form. Of course, we have not seen the form. I believe that as part of the motion, which we are likely to pass today, that form should now be made public.

Given the potential conflict of interest, I raised with the permanent under-secretary the question of Lord Mandelson’s continuing shareholding in Global Counsel. The permanent under-secretary replied:

“This was honestly the hardest bit of this bit of the process for both of us. Lord Mandelson was a founder of the company…While he was confident that he could conduct his role as ambassador without giving rise to a conflict, we wanted to make sure we managed and mitigated that possibility in some particular ways.”

The conclusion was not that Lord Mandelson should dispose of his shareholding. Instead, some Chinese walls were put in place to ensure that he was not aware of who the clients of Global Counsel were, or of the work being undertaken. I listened with concern to what my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said about the meeting that took place with Palantir. That raises real questions about the effectiveness of the so-called undertakings that were put in place by the Foreign Office, and we need to understand that.

I rise with incredulity, having learned that there was not a requirement to dispose of the interest. I recall going through ethics and propriety when being made a Minister, and I was told that it would be entirely inappropriate to hold things. I know of colleagues who had to dispose of their interests. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the noble Baroness Gray had still been running propriety and ethics, something like this would not have happened?

I completely share the view of my right hon. Friend. Like her, I went through a process in which I was required to get rid of shareholding interests, which were rather smaller than those held by Lord Mandelson. This is just one of a huge range of questions to which we need to know the answers.

Another appointment that we have had is that of the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, who some might argue is the de facto Foreign Secretary. Given that he is running around having secret meetings with Wang Yi and other Chinese senior officials, how can we have confidence that he went through the appropriate vetting, when we cannot have confidence that it was done for our ambassador to America?

Once we get the revelations from the documents as to precisely what occurred in the case of Lord Mandelson, that is bound to raise questions about what procedures were followed in the case of other appointees, particularly Jonathan Powell, who in many ways is the Foreign Secretary of this country.

We were told that the second stage of the process was the “due diligence” carried out by the Cabinet Office. The due diligence consisted of “identification of information” and judgment about it. However, all the information that was obtained in the due diligence was actually in the public domain already. No additional investigation took place; it was simply, essentially, an internet trawl. That due diligence report was presented to the Cabinet Secretary for onward transmission to the Prime Minister. However, due diligence through an internet trawl, even at that time, would already have shown up the fact that Peter Mandelson had stayed in the townhouse belonging to Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction, so the continuing association after his conviction had already been reported in the press and was therefore bound to form part of the due diligence process.

The question that has been raised several times in this debate already is this: when the appointment was made, did the Prime Minister know? We understand that, potentially, he did, which I assume was contained in the due diligence report. That was put directly to the Cabinet Secretary:

“did you tell the Prime Minister about Mandelson staying in the Manhattan townhouse when Epstein was in jail?”

All that the Cabinet Secretary said to us was:

“I will consider whether there is further information that can be shared and write to the Committee.”

We have never had a full answer to that question.

The third part of the process was the developed vetting, which we are told is a usual process for very senior appointments. We are told that it consists of a wide range of different investigations into staff files, company records checks, spent and unspent criminal records, credit history, a check of security service records, and an interview—not just of the candidate, but of the referees supplied—by a trained investigating officer. We will need to see the outcome of that report, even if it can only be provided, as the Government have now conceded, to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

With those three processes, the Prime Minister still decided that there was no obstacle to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. We then come to the question put to him at Prime Minister’s questions following the Bloomberg report of the large number of emails. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office learnt of those emails the night before Prime Minister’s questions. I pressed the permanent under-secretary on whether No. 10 had been told that the emails contained material evidence that could potentially change the whole perception of Lord Mandelson’s relationship. He said that he had a “duty of care” to Lord Mandelson and therefore needed to make checks. He essentially told us that No. 10 had not been informed. I find that very hard to believe. As somebody who used to prepare a Prime Minister for answering questions, I find the idea that the Prime Minister was not told something of that order absolutely extraordinary.

There is another question that needs to be asked. The British Government say that they discovered all the emails that proved the relationship was of very long standing and much closer than had ever been admitted by Lord Mandelson, because Bloomberg obtained copies in a leak. They were held by the US Government in the Department of Justice for months. The US Government knew all about them, but we are told it was only when Bloomberg obtained them that the British Government found out.

Does my right hon. Friend believe it is conceivable that the Government did not ask, “Is there any kompromat on the British ambassador to the US?” The idea seems incredulous. As he rightly points out, this has been known about for years.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are two possible questions. First, why did the British Government never ask the US Government, who they knew had all this material from Jeffrey Epstein, whether it contained any additional information that might be relevant to the appointment of Peter Mandelson? Equally, we are told that our relationship with the US is so close that we share intelligence. Is it really the case that they did not feel it necessary to tell us? Either way, it is an appalling breakdown of communication, and I have to say that I find it very difficult to believe.

These are all questions on which we pressed the permanent under-secretary and the Cabinet Secretary, and on which we failed to obtain any answers. I have to say that my confidence in a further investigation by the Cabinet Secretary is influenced by his failure to answer any of those questions when he came before the Foreign Affairs Committee the first time.

As I am sure my right hon. Friend remembers, once the Bloomberg leak had happened, many of us said to the Government that now that those things had turned out to be true, we should turn Lord Peter Mandelson inside out as if he had been outed as a spy; surely, had the Government done so, the things that were released over the weekend would have come out. Is he surprised, as I am, that the Government did not seem to do an investigation into Peter Mandelson subsequent to him being fired?

I completely share my hon. Friend’s astonishment. As further revelations come out about the behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein, particularly in relation to his links with Russia and other hostile powerhouses, one would have thought that the Government would say, “Please, if there is anything involving Peter Mandelson, we wish to know about it.” The potential damage to our national interest that may have occurred as a result of Lord Mandelson continuing to feed information to Jeffrey Epstein is huge. That is something that has not even begun to be properly exposed yet.

In his interrogation of the permanent under-secretary of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Cabinet Secretary, was my right hon. Friend able to shed any light on another part of our motion as to whether severance payments were paid to Lord Mandelson and, if so, how much they were? If payments were made, we should be seeking to get them back for the taxpayer.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and actually he anticipates my next point. I asked the permanent under-secretary whether or not Lord Mandelson was still on the civil service payroll and was told that he was not. When I asked whether a settlement or payment had been made, I was told that he had resigned but that his contract would be honoured; when I asked whether that included a payment, I was told that was a confidential matter between Lord Mandelson and the civil service. I will read the direct quote, because the exact wording is worth quoting again. I said:

“So the Foreign Office is not going to give any information as to whether payment was made to him”.

The permanent under-secretary replied:

“Any implications of his termination will be reported in our annual report and accounts, but termination payments below a particular threshold, which I think is £300,000, do not get itemised”—

I think the quick answer is no. However, I hope that is also something the Government have indicated will now be made public.

I was just thinking about the response that my right hon. Friend got from the permanent under- secretary. Does he think that was a permanent under-secretary trying to be helpful to the Committee, or was it him obfuscating and telling elected Members of Parliament to get their noses out of his business?

I have to say to my hon. Friend that I regarded the whole session as a sort of masterpiece in Sir Humphrey-speak—an awful lot of words that conveyed very little substance.

I absolutely understand the necessity of not revealing information that may be damaging to national security. However, as one or two Members have already said, transparency is really important here, and I therefore hope that the Government will make public as much as possible. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I will certainly be pressing the Committee to look at all the information that is published and to follow up on the rather unsatisfactory session that we have already had.

I will conclude with my overall impression, having looked at this process in some depth. It was clear that the Prime Minister wanted Peter Mandelson to be our ambassador to the United States. The Foreign Office had to go through the usual procedures—we heard about the three parts of the process—but I believe that the clear message that was sent to the Foreign Office was: “Go through your motions, but make sure that it ends up with his approval being granted.” The overriding impression is that, to some extent, boxes were ticked, but the Foreign Office was told very clearly that Mandelson was to be the next ambassador, and that was a direct instruction from the Prime Minister.

Let me start by putting on record my horror at the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, as so many hon. Members have done today. This man was a paedophile and a perpetrator of evil acts. The pain of the victims and their families is unimaginable. I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for her incredibly brave and powerful speech. My words cannot match hers, and I urge all colleagues who were not in the Chamber to take a look at that speech.

It is clear that the House is united in disdain for the actions of Lord Mandelson. It was always my intention to speak briefly this afternoon, and it was always my intention to talk about this as being an opportunity for the House to come together. It is unmistakeably the case that when we talk to our constituents, they often say, “Why don’t you talk to each other like human beings?”, “Why don’t you respect each other?”, “Why is this place so often a pantomime?” But that is not always the case, and today it absolutely has not been the case. We do respect each other. I have been here for 18 months, and I have the humility to say that I have much to learn about this place. I admire many people from all parts of the House. I will call out a few of them who have made speeches this afternoon: the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare); the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry); the former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who made an important intervention that I shall come to a little later; and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who made a number of interventions.

It is not just today that we have listened to each other. Indeed, we should listen to each other. Members who know me will know that I am a passionate pro-European. I define myself as a social democrat and an internationalist. Some will cheer, but others will not. One who probably would not—he is not in his place today—is the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). There is not a huge amount on which we agree, but whenever he speaks on international affairs, I do my utmost to listen to him because of his experience in this House. Another Member who I am very surprised not to see in his place today is the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

He is in Westminster Hall.

The only thing that matches his number of interventions in Westminster Hall is his decency as a man and a parliamentarian.

The focus today has rightly been on Mandelson. There is unity in contempt for his actions: his scandalous and brazen leaking of Government information, and the way in which he undermined the Government and his colleagues seemingly at every turn. His actions will offend every British citizen, every public servant and every Member of this House. That is why decisive action was needed, and it is why this afternoon’s debate is so important.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s proposal to allow the Intelligence and Security Committee to determine which documents are to be released. I commend the courage not only of those who made that argument earlier today, not knowing whether they would be successful, but of the Government who accepted those recommendations.

My hon. Friend has articulated very eloquently how we have come together in this House both to roundly condemn the role that Mandelson played in the corrupt web around Jeffrey Epstein and to say together that the full facts must be laid bare. I hope that he will join me in congratulating the Government on tabling a manuscript amendment proposing independent scrutiny by the ISC, so that it will oversee the disclosure of the appropriate documents.

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. That is why I began my remarks by saying that this has been an important day for the House. I sincerely believe that we are collectively in a much better place now than when we started the debate.

I thank the hon. Member for the tone of his speech. I agree with him about the need to use moderate language and be representatives of our constituents, but in addition to that, we are elected to this place—I would hope—because of our judgment and the trust of our electorate. Whatever the outcome of this debate and of these documents, we already know that the public knew, the media knew and our constituents knew—we all knew, and we discovered at about 12 o’clock today that the Prime Minister also knew —that Lord Mandelson had a close personal relationship with a convicted paedophile. Does the hon. Member think that the Prime Minister can still command the trust of this House and the public?

There are unquestionably things that we did not know. I listened incredibly carefully to the Prime Minister during PMQs today, and he was clear. He made a personal statement that he has felt lied to at every single stage of the process. The precise reason why every Member of this House wants to see every single document published that possibly can be is to get to the bottom of that, but I believe the Prime Minister.

I will make some progress.

All of us in this House deserve the truth. Everyone in this country deserves the truth. Most importantly of all, so does every victim. Mandelson’s time in public life was a very dark chapter. It is the duty of this House to shine a light on it and to give the public the answers that they absolutely deserve.

This situation stinks. Peter Mandelson maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after he had been convicted. It was not before anyone knew about his grotesque crimes, not when it was being whispered about, but after his conviction, when the world knew exactly who and what Jeffrey Epstein was. Yet before Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States, senior Labour MPs—Members sitting on the Government Benches today—went on television and social media to praise him. They knew the facts, because by that point it was public knowledge that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s New York home while Epstein was serving time as a convicted paedophile.

When asked about this last September, the Prime Minister told the House he had “full confidence” in Peter Mandelson, despite knowing about his close relationship with Epstein. That’s right: the leader of the Labour party and Prime Minister had full confidence in a man who was besties with a convicted nonce. What a disgrace! What we are witnessing is not accountability but the Westminster club protecting its own.

This is not just about this Labour Government; large sections of the media also played their part. Mandelson did not simply drift back into public life. He was rehabilitated, rebranded and presented as respectable. He was welcomed on the BBC’s flagship programmes as a wise elder statesman. He was given deferential treatment by The Spectator, The Guardian and The Sunday Times. Those are the same outlets that lecture relentlessly about standards and morality when it is a trade unionist, a protestor or a working-class person who puts a foot wrong. But when it is one of their own, the tone changes. Suddenly it is about experience, pragmatism and “getting things done”. This is how power protects itself.

What about the victims—the girls and young women abused by Epstein? They received an apology from Mandelson only after sustained pressure. It was not freely given, not offered because it was the right thing to do. Until recently, he still enjoyed the zone 2 dinner party treatment, with magazine-style PR photos of Mandelson being published only this week.

Then there is the money. At least $75,000 was transferred from Epstein to Mandelson. He says that he cannot remember the transactions. If £75,000 landed in the bank account of almost anyone else in the country, they definitely would remember. To claim otherwise is contemptuous and goes to the heart of why trust in politics is collapsing. If those in power cannot remember vast sums of money flowing into their accounts, why should the public believe that they are acting in the public interest?

This only came to light because the American authorities released the Epstein files. We are told that the UK has no record of Mandelson’s emails. If those files had not been released, he would have settled back into public life, shielded by friendly journalists and wealthy backers. That is how broken our political culture has become. And now further emails have emerged, raising serious questions about whether market-sensitive information was leaked while he was at the heart of Government.

When ordinary people make mistakes, they pay the price. Nurses are disciplined, teachers are suspended and care workers lose their jobs, but if you belong to the Westminster club, you can be linked to one of the most notorious predators of our time and still reach the top.

Does the hon. Member agree that potentially every single working person, retired person and child in this country has paid the price for what Mandelson did? If he did indeed share information relating to the financial crash, it has cost everyone a fortune and he owes everyone in this country an apology.

I absolutely agree. This is a systemic issue, and that is why I support the calls for an independent, judge-led public inquiry.

Yes, Peter Mandelson was eventually removed as ambassador to the US, but he remained in the House of Lords and as a Labour party member until three days ago. The Labour party cannot pretend that this was some distant mistake, quietly corrected a long time ago. This was a decision it defended until it was forced to abandon it, and he should never have been appointed in the first place. If this Labour Government believe that the appointment was proper, they should stop stonewalling and prove it by publishing all the documents: the vetting, the advice, the risk assessments, the correspondence and the contracts—including with Palantir. Instead, the Prime Minister tabled an amendment to withhold any papers deemed

“prejudicial to UK national security or international relations.”

We know that when Governments fear scrutiny, they wrap themselves up in the flag and hope that the public will look away. If there is nothing to hide, why carve out broad exemptions in advance? The Government’s last-minute manuscript amendment is a desperate attempt to control dissent on the Labour Back Benches. This is not accountability. It is not transparency. It is delay and damage control. The Government are kicking the can down the road in the hope that the outrage will fade and the questions will go away, but they will not. That is why I am supporting calls for an independent, judge-led public inquiry.

This is not just about Peter Mandelson; it is about a system that protects the powerful and disregards the public. The victims deserve better and the British public deserve better, so the Government must publish all the documents, end the corruption and the cover-up, and stop insulting the public with empty words when what we need is transparency. The Prime Minister said he had full confidence in Peter Mandelson, but the public have no confidence in the Prime Minister. He should do the honourable thing and resign.

There is an old proverb—it might be of Russian extraction, which would be fitting enough—that says, “Tell me who your friend is, and I will tell you who you are.” Doesn’t that sum up Peter Mandelson? The friend of the child abuser. The friend of Jeffrey Epstein. He is the living personification of that proverb. He is a man apparently so corrupted in his own morals that he thinks what he did was okay, and is perhaps corrupted financially. That corruption, of course, is the product of his intoxication as a freeloader on the rich and the powerful.

Peter Mandelson has brought us to a very sorry pass indeed, but the abiding two words that will live from today relate to the Prime Minister, and they are: he knew. Those words will long outlive this debate. He knew, when he appointed Peter Mandelson, that he had that ongoing relationship with Epstein. He told us today that he did not know the depth of the relationship. Sorry, but it is not about depth. It is not a question of scale. It is a question of whether there was a relationship, and the very fact that there was should have been enough for any Prime Minister. That calls into question fundamentally the judgment of our Prime Minister. Our Prime Minister has to make fine judgments on the world stage. Day and daily, he has to make judgments that affect us all. If, on a matter as glaring as this, his judgment is patently and fatally flawed, it raises fundamental questions as to how we can trust his judgment.

Even those who knew Peter Mandelson tangentially would have had enough suspicion to question his appointment. We in Northern Ireland know something of him: he was our Secretary of State at the turn of the century for two years, until he had to resign over the passport application scandal. I then next encountered him when I was a Member of the European Parliament and he was the United Kingdom’s Trade Commissioner in the European Commission from 2004 to 2008. That was not uncontroversial. In 2006, I well remember in the European Parliament the controversy about the fact that he had been holidaying on a yacht with an Italian tycoon whose business had benefited from his imposition of EU anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese shoes. There he was, months later, on the businessman’s yacht. Two years later, he was on another yacht—must be something about yachts—in Corfu with an Russian oligarch. Mr Mandelson as Trade Commissioner had just cut the EU import tariffs on aluminium, benefiting the oligarch’s company Rusal, which was in the aluminium business.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there may be some considerable merit in both the European Commission and the European Parliament looking over their paperwork to see precisely where these things link up and whether Peter Mandelson breached rules when he was serving as Commissioner?

That was the point I was coming to.

Sadly, the European Union being the European Union, it had no great interest in investigating those matters; they were rather swept under the carpet. I say to the Government that Peter Mandelson was there as the United Kingdom’s Commissioner to the European Commission, and that gives status and opportunity to venture into inquiries about those matters. Then, of course, he came back to be sacked, again.

All of that is largely in the public domain, and that is before we come to Epstein. Equally in the public domain at the point of appointment was the knowledge that Mandelson had an ongoing relationship with a man whose release from prison for child abuse he described as his “liberation”. Our Prime Minister decided that he was a suitable person to be our ambassador in probably the most important capital in the world, in Washington. That was a fatal flaw of judgment by the Prime Minister. I fear that it will be the hallmark of much of his premiership that he made a decision such as that and then came to this House in September, when things began to leak out, and expressed his confidence in Mandelson. There was flawed judgment not only in appointing Mandelson, but in continuing to express confidence in him. The Prime Minister has finally run out of road on this issue, but left hanging around his neck is the fatal misstep of appointing Mandelson—a fatal flaw of judgment. It raises a fundamental point about the credibility of this Prime Minister. That will be the abiding legacy of this situation.

“Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” That is a slightly obscure quote from a Trojan priest—the one who spotted the danger. Many Members will know the wider story of the Trojan horse. The moral of that story is that warnings were there but were ignored. That is fundamental to what we are seeing today. Troy did not fall because there were no warnings; it fell because they were dismissed, sent away, ignored. That led to catastrophe.

Let us apply that to our Prime Minister. He appointed as ambassador a man known for decades as “the dark knight” for operating behind the scenes. That was his reputation—and not only on that basis. He was sacked not once but twice from Cabinet roles. Every instinct in me says that no other Member of Parliament, on whatever side of the House, would think him a suitable candidate to be this great nation’s ambassador to one of our greatest allies.

We have heard that we cannot have more information because of national security concerns, but we Conservatives are not asking to see the blueprints of the horse, or the blueprints of the walls of Troy; we are simply asking whether the Prime Minister was warned before he wheeled into Government the Trojan horse that was Mandelson. Did he receive any information? Did he know anything? I was thinking about that this morning, until I heard the Prime Minister speak at Prime Minister’s questions. As was rightly pointed out in the speech before mine, he did know. This is not analogue or digital; he knew that there were concerns but he made the appointment. This is not about the intelligence but about judgment. We want to understand whether advice was given and whether it was followed. It is not about how that advice was written, but simply whether it was acknowledged, passed on and ignored.

What has not been mentioned is that we have been over this once before. Just before Christmas, we had a debate under Standing Order No. 24. At the time, I asked why the Prime Minister had not come to the House. By his own admission, he makes the decisions, so he must have all the answers. When he came into government, he said at the door of No. 10 that he wanted to do things differently. All he has proved is that he cannot show leadership by coming to answer the questions put to him.

Yet again, we are spending parliamentary time debating whether information will be released, when the Prime Minister knows that information. In the five hours that we will have spent debating this motion, he could have answered our questions and set this right. Instead, he is not here. Members might say that convention shows no other Prime Minister has done that. Well, some of them did, but, more importantly, this Prime Minister said that he was going to be different; he told us that he wanted to see change.

I found it shocking today when the Prime Minister openly admitted that he knew that Mandelson had an ongoing relationship with a convicted paedophile when he appointed him. Regardless of anything else we discuss today, that goes against any value that I stand for in my life and that my constituents would stand for. Does my hon. Friend believe that it is untenable for the Prime Minister to stay in his position?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Troy fell because leaders ignored the advice given when the horse was at the gate, and Prime Ministers fall for the same reason. The Prime Minister is either saying that his judgment was so catastrophic that he did not see what all of us have seen instinctively or that he chose to ignore the information. Whichever the outcome, that is the problem that faces us today.

It is customary in these kinds of debates for a speaker to pose questions to the ministerial team. I will not do that; instead, my question is to the people sitting behind them on the Government Back Benches. Why are we having a Humble Address? This is the very opportunity—the literal reason for them—for Humble Addresses. They exist in moments such as this one, when there is stalling in scrutiny, when we cannot get the answers that this House demands and when there is obfuscation and no way forward. Today, we ask the Monarch to compel the Government to give out that information. That is important not only for party politics but for both sides of this House and the wider country. The motion does not ask those on the Government Benches to condemn but simply to clarify. We need to know who said what, when and why, who knew what, and with whom and what were the discussions. I think that can be supported on all sides of the House. Clarity is what the Humble Address strives for.

Back Benchers are not being asked to defend or attack the appointment; they are simply being asked to step forward and vote for a motion that means all of us, here in this House and across the country, get to understand why the Prime Minister made his decision. If he will not come to the Dispatch Box and answer the questions about that, maybe the documentation that he saw and signed off will show the answers. I ask Members on the Government Benches to support this motion, to stand up for that simple transparency and to let us have some clarity on what has happened and what will happen going forward.

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.

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?

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.

We know that there is one thing that Mandelson did not lie about, because the Prime Minister knew it and said so today: that he continued his contact with Jeffrey Epstein after he was convicted as a paedophile. There were no lies in that, and the Prime Minister admitted that he knew it. Defend that!

My hon. Friend makes a point that is typically made in court. When the defendant is found to be lying, one addresses the jury and says, “He has lied about that, members of the jury. How can you trust him to tell the truth about the charge that he is facing?” In public office, serial liars should not be tolerated.

Perhaps I can rephrase the question asked by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). How was the Prime Minister to know that the famous serial liar Peter Mandelson would lie to him?

If the Prime Minister was here, I am sure that he would be able to answer that question. What has always amazed me—and a lot of others, I am sure—is how Mandelson has risen again from the ashes after each disgrace.

Can my hon. Friend tell us what we can learn about the documentation, and how the investigation was run back then? As he pointed out, Mandelson was exonerated, yet other papers were found, and suddenly he was guilty. It would be helpful to understand what needs to be done to ensure that we have the right information, as we need to make inferences and decisions about what was going on.

I was going to conclude by saying that I go along with those people who have called for a public inquiry, because it would be able to require the production of the documents. We know from the experience of Sir Anthony Hammond that a non-judicially led public inquiry cannot necessarily get access to all the documents needed. We do not want some whitewash inquiry by the Cabinet Office, and then to find out a couple of years later that it did not have all the documents in front of it. That is the argument in favour of having a public inquiry.

How is it that this Teflon-coated Mandelson has been able to hold high office in the Labour party for all these years? One of the most important speeches today was given by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). He and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) know what it is like to be on the receiving end of the Stasi—in this case, the New Labour Stasi. The only explanation for Mandelson continuing to be reinstated after all this bad behaviour is that he was seen as a key party member, and an enforcer of the New Labour Stasi. He was plausible and well connected, and knew how to ingratiate himself with the rich and powerful.

Mandelson was not just a key member of New Labour; he was its inventor. He was the man who replaced the Labour flag’s implements of horny-handed toil with the red rose—the brander par excellence. I think people were also afraid of him; I am not the first person to describe this as the “Scandalson” story, and I am sure I will not be the last.

I am sorry; I understated the proposition, and my right hon. Friend is quite right to correct me. If we had a public inquiry, we could extend its terms of references to Mandelson’s influence on the internal politics of the Labour party over the last 30 years. Would that not be interesting?

My hon. Friend is making a great speech about Mandelson’s influence in the Labour party. It is reported that he was involved in the selection of up to 25% of its candidates. Does my hon. Friend think that the documents in question should be made available to anyone who needs help looking into his influence on the Labour party? [Interruption.]

Order. I am having difficulty hearing the debate.

What you were hearing, Madam Deputy Speaker, was incredulity being expressed by my hon. Friends at the revelation that so discredited a man had such an influence over the choice of candidates, many of whom were successfully elected at the last general election. I do not how those Members will vote this evening. It is extraordinary that Mandelson has had this enduring influence over politics in this country for such a long time, and we needed documents to be produced in the United States to get somewhere near the truth.

The Government tried to stop the full disclosure of documents today. It was primarily Government Members who identified that and said that they would not put up with it, so it is thanks to them that a manuscript amendment has been tabled. However, there may still be a misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) said that the ISC would vet documents before they were released, but that is not my understanding. The Committee will get to see them, however inappropriate it is for them to be published to the whole House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ministers must set out the principle that not only should documents be referred to the ISC, but should be released, if the ISC agrees that they are not injurious to our security and should be made public?

Absolutely. We have to erode this cancer that is affecting our public life and the esteem in which public servants are held. When the public see what has happened over this period in the Mandelson case, they must be horrified.

I am a from the 2024 intake, and I am very grateful that I have never had to meet the cretin that is Peter Mandelson. I want to be clear that, party politics aside—or not, actually—I did not join the Labour party because I hold anyone who has led or influenced the party in high esteem. I joined the Labour party for two very important reasons: the welfare state, which is one of the most important things that this country has ever done, and the national health service.

It is dangerous when we hold someone in such high esteem, and when we give so much power to so few people, that things like this are allowed to happen. Let me be very clear: my faith in the Labour party to deliver for the people of this country continues. As for my faith in people like Peter Mandelson, I am very grateful that he is no longer a member of this party.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I am certainly not going to make any accusations about her owing anything to Peter Mandelson’s patronage. From what she says, it seems that she is going to join those of us in this House who are independently minded and express our views in a straightforward manner, but it is obvious that a lot of Labour Members who were elected in 2024 were chosen by panels that included Mandelson. This is not exclusively a problem for the Labour party; we must recognise that in our democracy the people who choose the candidates have enormous power, and if those people are corrupt—as has now been established was the case with Mandelson—that places in grave doubt the credibility of our democratic institutions.

According to reports, it is worse than that: Peter Mandelson had his fingertips throughout the whole of the Labour party, but also the Government. There are reports that after the Prime Minister had realised he had had a continuing relationship with Epstein, Mandelson was in No. 10 during the Cabinet reshuffle of 5 September, so he had a direct role in appointing half the Cabinet, has he not?

These revelations keep coming, yet answers come there none. I hope that in due course we can pursue these points further with the Prime Minister when he next appears in the House.

When we talk about the appointment of Mandelson, what we are really talking about is the judgment of the Prime Minister. Mandelson is now a key part of the Starmer Government —appointments, what goes on, the key people—which brings into question every judgment made by this Prime Minister, from Chagos and China to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I would say that today is the crumbling of Starmer. His judgment is poor, and it is ruining this country and the Labour party.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Judgment, discretion and the way that we behave are fundamental; they are part of our character, and we know that character is set quite early in life. Certainly, we can see that Mandelson’s character has not changed in all the time he has been involved in public life and so-called public service.

It is only because of what has been revealed in the United States that we are now in a position to know that Mandelson—he is no longer Lord Mandelson or the right hon. Lord Mandelson—

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should find out—if he does not already know—whether Mandelson was in No. 10 at the time of the last Government reshuffle? Was he involved in the appointment of Ministers on the Treasury Bench? If the Minister can tell us categorically that he was not, that will be a relief to this House.

And if the Government cannot give a straight answer to my right hon. Friend’s question, that is another reason why we need a public inquiry.

My hon. Friend mentioned the revelations that are coming out of the emails. The point I made earlier—it is also very important that the Minister responds to this—is that the Government could have asked the US Department of Justice, “Is there anything in the emails relating to Mandelson that has not been released and could affect our decision to appoint him?” Nothing was stopping them from asking the DOJ that question, and it is vital that we know whether they did or not.

That is another very good point. I am sure that it has been picked up by Members on the Treasury Bench, and they will respond accordingly. In a sense, we have to thank our mercies that Mandelson has finally been exposed—and not just that exposure outside George Osborne’s house.

I very much enjoyed the history lesson about a man who has a history of misfeasance in public office. I have spoken in this House about my surprise at his appointment as ambassador to the US, which is an incredibly important relationship for this country. Listening to the debate makes me reflect on the importance of parts of our constitution that give us freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Those are two incredibly important things, and I think we all owe a great vote of thanks and gratitude to Elon Musk and to X. He has played his part in exposing a great deal of this evil.

My hon. Friend makes his point in his own way. I just draw attention to the fact that “Freedom 250” is how the United States is describing the celebrations for the 250th anniversary of independence. The point he makes about freedom resonates well on both sides of the Atlantic, and we must never forget that. Our representative in the United States during that historic year could have been none other than Mandelson. We must thank everybody who has been involved in trying to bring to light these revelations, which have shamed the Prime Minister. In the end, I think the Prime Minister was shamed into sacking Mandelson, rather than exercising his own judgment.

Does my hon. Friend, who is very experienced, believe that one of the lessons of inherent necessity for political survival is the ability to learn from mistakes? Therefore, given that a new ambassador will take Mandelson’s place—I do not think a permanent appointment has yet been made—does he think the Prime Minister will have enough good sense and wit to appoint a diplomatic professional to the role, or will it be another ill-starred flunky whom he favours for political and personal reasons?

Actually, I think the appointment has been made. I have met the gentleman concerned, who is an esteemed member of the diplomatic corps. He was present at Mr Speaker’s dinner in honour of the Speaker of the House of Representatives two or three weeks ago. We are in safer, more secure hands.

We have heard during the course of this debate that a manuscript amendment to amendment (a) will be moved, stating:

“which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament”.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that all the information we are requesting will, under that amendment, go to the ISC? We have not as yet heard from the Government what will happen with that information, where the reports will come and what will be done. We have not heard the judgment about whether an embarrassment for a Labour Government is different from national security and international relations. Does he share my concern that, unless the Government set out what that framework will look like, it will be hard to vote for their amendment, given the risk of losing that transparency?

I am not going to suggest that we do not vote in support of our own motion. We know from the course of this debate that a lot more questions are being raised. In due course, with the forensic leadership shown by the Leader of the Opposition, I think we will be able to get to the bottom of these issues and get the answers we deserve. In the meantime, it is frustrating for people.

I will finish with this final note. I did not go to Oxford, but we should show solidarity with the people of Oxford University, who had the wisdom not to elect Mandelson as their chancellor.

It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend, although I have to say that was one of his shortest speeches. We come here for a serious matter of the utmost gravity. I have heard a number of good speeches from all parts of the House, including Members on the Government Benches. I commend all those Members who have stood up and said that they are not happy with the Government’s position. That is not an easy thing to do. I am pleased that there is now a manuscript amendment that will force the Government’s hand and ensure that the ISC has a pivotal and critical role.

A number of observations have been made today, some of which I agreed with and some of which I did not. I did agree with a great many of them, but a couple of Members said that the Government had demonstrated leadership in getting to this point. They did not demonstrate leadership. They got here because they were dragged here; they got here because there had been a dump of documents by the Department of Justice, the Leader of the Opposition tabled a motion that forced their hand, and they finally had to confront the fact that Peter Mandelson had a relationship with Epstein for much longer than many of us knew—although certainly the Prime Minister knew, as we found out earlier today. The idea that the Government have demonstrated leadership is for the birds.

I have heard Members on both sides of the House talk about the victims of Epstein, but I say to Labour Members that those are just words if they are not followed up with action. Although the ISC amendment is important, it is not the end of the journey. For months the Conservatives have been pushing for clarity so that we can discover the truth about what was going on with Lord Mandelson’s appointment. This goes to the heart of our politics. What did we find out today when the Leader of the Opposition challenged the Prime Minister? He had run out of road and finally had to come clean about the fact that he knew about this relationship. As for the idea that we need to know the depth of the relationship, let me ask Labour Members this: how deep does a relationship with a paedophile need to be before it becomes eligible for declaration?

I think the fact that the Prime Minister resisted giving that answer for so long proves that he knows it is incredibly damaging to his Government that he did not want people to know that he had known and appointed Mandelson anyway.

I agree with my hon. Friend. We were sitting together earlier in the debate and reflecting on some of the speeches. I think it was the Health Secretary who talked about the “toxic culture” at No. 10. The amendment was a demonstration of that toxic culture. It was not tabled for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein; it was tabled to protect the Prime Minister.

Does my hon. Friend agree that focusing on the angle of what Mandelson did as a Minister in releasing secrets and trying to make money from them is still deflecting from the fact that it was felt to be “worth the risk” to send to America as our ambassador a man who was associating with a convicted and, at that time, released paedophile?

We should all share anger about that, because it speaks to a rot that, as we are finding out, has infected our politics and Government—Labour Government—in this country for decades. I understand that people make mistakes, in all parts of the House, but this is of such gravity that it speaks to a corruption that we need to get to the heart of. What my right hon. Friend has just said is extremely important, because this is one issue involving corruption, but we cannot get away from the fact that Mandelson had a role at every echelon of the Labour party’s journey—whether it was new Labour before we came to power in 2010 or the “new new Labour” that is now in charge; whether it was helping in the selection of candidates, or—Members are shaking their heads. I am more than happy to take an intervention.

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, because I would not want any Member of this House to inadvertently besmirch any other Member through misleading information. I served on Labour’s national executive committee for 10 years before entering this place, and Peter Mandelson had no role whatsoever in the selection of Labour candidates during that time. I make that point so that Members are aware of exactly what they are talking about.

I am glad to say that I did not mention any single Member of the House, so I am happy that the hon. Lady has put that on that record, but I do not trust Mandelson—[Interruption.] I am responding to the hon. Lady’s intervention. I do not trust Mandelson following what he has done, and I do not know how far his reach was in this Government or in that party. I do not trust him because we know he had a very close relationship—

The hon. Member can shake her head all she wants; we know that Mandelson had a close relationship with Morgan McSweeney, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. The Labour party has not even started to address that point about the chief of staff. I hope the hon. Lady is right, by the way, but if she is not and documents do come to the fore, I am sure we will come back to this House to scrutinise which Members he had a hand in appointing.

On that point, it is being reported in the mainstream media that Mandelson had a hand in recruiting candidates for the Labour party. The mainstream media are reporting that; they will have evidence to back that up, so there will be candidate selections that he had a hand in. It is also rumoured that he has been involved in Cabinet reshuffles, so he has had a far greater reach than probably most of you realise, and any defence of that now is indefensible.

I could not have said it better myself—although I might not have used the word “you”. It is important to recognise the reach that Mandelson had, how he was enabled, and the fact that, at every step of the way, there was no regard for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. That is a really important point, because there has been a lot of obfuscation today. We have had to drag the Government into tabling the new amendment so that they will now release the documents to the ISC.

Hon. Friends have made important points about the role of the ISC. I say again that this is not the end of the journey; Labour Members have a role to play in doing right by the victims. What we know is that Mandelson was an enabler, so anyone who has enabled Mandelson needs to take a long, hard look at themselves.

Is the wider point not that, if the Prime Minister had been duped, he would have released the papers back in September when we had the Standing Order No. 24 debate or put them out there now, rather than leaving it until this debate forced his hand? The only reason some papers are being released is that his hand has been forced by the Leader of the Opposition. Does my hon. Friend not think that is bizarre?

Well, it is not bizarre, because we have been here many times before. The Government have been dragged along time after time, scandal after scandal. I say to Government Back Benchers: this is a Prime Minister who is flailing. He has admitted, after months and months of pushing, that he knew—he knew about the relationship that Mandelson had with Epstein, and yet he thought it was a risk worth taking anyway.

I made this point earlier, but that “risk” was not just in denigrating the experience of the victims; it was in marching all those Labour Members up the hill and risking their careers. We are Members of Parliament; it is okay that we care about our careers, wherever they may end up, but the truth is that the Prime Minister did not care about them. That journey is not over yet, because he is going to use those people over and over again; he will throw other people under the bus before he throws his chief of staff under the bus—but that will happen too, I can almost guarantee it.

Does my hon. Friend think that we will now start to understand how Mandelson had such a level of influence that, having had to resign from Government for not declaring six-figure-sum loans, having had to resign from Government for trying to flog passports, and having gone off to the EU and faced all the allegations about that, he was brought back into Government and put into the House of Lords? There must have been something that made people think it was a good idea to bring him back again and again and again.

My right hon. Friend’s exasperation is exactly the exasperation that the British public will be feeling as they read the headlines. That is how they have felt as the stories have unfolded over the last few days and months.

This speaks to a fundamental point: the toxicity at No. 10. The rot starts at the top. Labour Members have the authority and the power to do something about this. The relationship that Mandelson was obvious to all of us. It was obvious to us when the Prime Minister appointed him to one of the most important positions in our country—and to a position in one of the most important capitals in the world—but the Prime Minister did it anyway, because he thought it was a risk worth taking.

In response to the intervention from my right hon. Friend Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), there is a key difference between this Prime Minister and former Labour Prime Ministers, in that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair appointed Peter Mandelson without knowing some of the connections that he had. The key difference is that this Prime Minister knew and still did it. There is still a Labour Prime Minister with integrity, and that is Gordon Brown, who actually took things to the police. This Prime Minister did no such thing.

My hon. Friend always makes excellent points. I was going to talk about Gordon Brown later, but I will do so now. He raised the question back in September. He wanted to know what had gone on, and he was batted away. Has the Minister asked the Cabinet Secretary why the former Prime Minister was batted away? Did that former Prime Minister not have enough respect in No. 10 to get a legitimate answer about what went down? The public deserve to know, and this House deserves to know.

I want to make another point about integrity, which was raised by a number of Members earlier, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith). The Prime Minister, by his own admission, has called into question the integrity of every Member of this House. We all know that trust in politicians is at an all-time low—we see it on the doorstep and in our inboxes. I was at a birthday party with my four-and-a-half-year-old son at the weekend. I was chatting to some parents, and the Mandelson headlines came up. I had to say, “Look, it’s not normal for a billionaire to fly politicians out. We have a pretty strict expenses regime following the expenses scandal.” We cannot move left or right, yet the British public do not trust us, because they think that we take them for granted. I had to explain to those parents that it is not normal to be invited to islands and to have luxuries thrown at you. This was not normal behaviour, yet the Prime Minister knew about this relationship and let it happen. That is a really important point.

As my hon. Friend says, the Prime Minister knew, but he also stood at the Dispatch Box in September and said that he had “full confidence” in Peter Mandelson—Lord Mandelson—knowing what he knew. Does my hon. Friend not find that extraordinary?

I find it disgusting. What Epstein did was absolutely disgusting in its own right: he trafficked, he was a child sex offender, and in many ways he was a coward in how he left this world. I wish he had faced the full force of the law. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) talked about enablers and the role that powerful men played. I say to Labour Members that they are at a crossroads. If they really care about Epstein’s victims, they need to ask how this was allowed to happen.

By the way, it is not just about Mandelson and Epstein. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) made a point about Bill Gates. I watched the video of Melinda Gates yesterday, and I was talking to my wife about how horrible it must have been to see the emails and what he was up to. My hon. Friend also mentioned Richard Branson. The reality is that there is clearly a culture of men who thought they were above the law, and the DOJ is grappling with that issue over in America.

We have talked about some very important things in today’s debate, for which I commend hon. Members, but we have to be honest about the fact that this matter came on to our shores. It is possible that there are victims whom we still do not know about, and that criminal investigations still need to happen. I need an assurance from Ministers that if that comes to the fore, the Government will act quickly to make sure that criminal investigations are started. The public require that to help us on the journey towards rebuilding trust, and we should not underestimate the need for that.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful, wide-ranging speech, and I am sure that more details will come out. Does it not come down to the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US despite knowing that he had had a long-standing friendship with a prolific convicted paedophile, to the extent that he had stayed in that paedophile’s house while he was serving prison time? That in itself is sickening and shocking. Not only should people not be defending Peter Mandelson—and they are not—but nobody should be defending the Prime Minister for his sickening conduct.

The Prime Minister has brought his judgment into question. The Opposition have been saying that for a couple of years—Oppositions do that—but on this issue, he has marched everyone up the hill and Ministers have gone out to defend him on this issue time and again. His position really is now untenable. I guarantee Labour Members that when they go home and talk to their constituents, they will have to answer questions about why the Prime Minister allowed this to happen.

My hon. Friend may have heard the powerful speech by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) earlier in the day about factionalism in the Labour party. The Prime Minister not only appointed Peter Mandelson to the post of ambassador knowing, as he declared today, what he knew, but he previously brought him in as a strategic adviser, advocate and planner in the 2024 Labour general election campaign. All Labour Members are tainted by that association with Mandelson, which was brought about by the leader of their party, now the Prime Minister, who knew about this matter at the time. That perhaps has not been picked up on as fully as it should have been in today’s debate.

I will leave Labour Members to reflect on that because many have spoken up today, but I say once again that they are just words if there is no action.

The judgment of the Prime Minister is deeply, deeply flawed. He alone is responsible for the culture at No. 10. I ran a business. If something was going wrong, the buck stopped with me. He alone is responsible for the culture at No. 10. It is not Morgan McSweeney. He enabled Morgan McSweeney. He needs to be held accountable for his relationship. We need to see the emails and we need to see what the conversations were—that is why this is important—but the buck stops with the Prime Minister.

I am going to raise a very sensitive issue. My hon. Friend raised a point about vulnerable women being abused, about powerful men taking advantage, and about a friend who was appointed when he was known to be a friend of a convicted paedophile. We also have a Labour Government who ran away from investigating grooming gangs—again, vulnerable women being taken advantage of by powerful men. The Labour Government have said they stand up for women, women’s rights and vulnerable women. They have shown now that they do not, at any level—whether at the highest level or in respect of white working-class girls. Labour, I am afraid, has a lot of questions to answer about protecting women.

I will end with two responses to that intervention. First, my right hon. Friend is obviously absolutely right. I say to Labour Members, who were shaking their heads, that every decision—every decision—the Government have made is brought into question by the lack of judgment the Prime Minister has shown. I stood at the Dispatch Box and repeatedly called for a national grooming inquiry. I am a British-Pakistani Muslim male. I have two sons. I want them to grow up without aspersions being cast on them. One day, I hope to have a daughter—apologies to my wife—and I want her to grow up in a safe environment. We have to be honest and we have to be strong in making those calls. I say to the Minister, as he answers those questions, that the question about the ISC is really important. We need to know that under the amendment, it will have the full authority to deal with what comes in front of it, so that we and the public can make a judgment.

Secondly, why did Gordon Brown’s calls fall on deaf ears? Why was he not given the respect, as a former Prime Minister, of his calls being dealt with? Was Mandelson so strong that, despite his toxicity, he was protected and enabled?

Finally—I have made this point repeatedly—the judgment of the Prime Minister surely has to be in question. We will now find out what else was known. The Minister has the opportunity to share anything else that he might want to share at the Dispatch Box.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to disturb the debate in this way. I have tried to follow it as much as possible while I have been in and out of the Chamber with other duties. A manuscript amendment has been agreed, with, I take it, cross-party agreement. People will be making up their minds on how to vote on that amendment, and we therefore need clarity—those on the Front Bench could intervene now to clarify this for me. I want to get this absolutely clear. We are all going to vote for the material to be released; there is consensus on that. The difference is with regard to who interprets what is released. The manuscript amendment excepts elements of information that are prejudicial to national security and international relations,

“which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.”

I agree with that, but I would like clarity on whether the Intelligence and Security Committee will make the decision about publication, or—[Interruption.] Please listen. Will it make the decision or will it simply advise the Government and the final decision will rest with the Government? It would be helpful to have that clarified before we vote.

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I recognise that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asks in order to assist the House. If it is of assistance, the answer to his question is that when the material is referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Committee, which is independent, will act independently: it will consider the material referred to it and then decide how to respond, what to refer to publicly and what not to refer to publicly. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee will act independently in this matter, as it does in all matters.

If I could follow that, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Order. There are several other points of order. I am keen that we do not conduct the debate via points of order, so, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will take two further points of order and then respond to his point of order. Hopefully we might then have an answer.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following the answer we have just heard, if the Intelligence and Security Committee comes across evidence of commercial misdemeanours as well as intelligence and international relations misdemeanours, what powers does it have to do anything about that? Where will it refer those concerns and where will those inquiries lead? The issues of lobbying and potential corruption in the handing out of Government contracts are massive, and I would not want that swept under the carpet on the basis that the Committee is dealing with international relations and national security.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have heard this evening from the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who celebrated Elon Musk—rather tactlessly, I believe—in this debate. Notwithstanding the fact that like Mandelson, Musk had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and in fact was found to have been practically begging for a visit to his island, the hon. Member declined to include—

Order. That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. I do not think it is appropriate during points of order specifically on the Intelligence and Security Committee to raise that matter. It is not for the Chair to rule on comments by other Members during the course of the debate.

I am grateful to you for allowing me to continue, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth declined in his intervention to declare his interest: he is, in fact, bought and paid for by Elon Musk.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has very clearly brought into question the probity of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). He might want to withdraw that. It is of course a matter for the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth to declare that, which he could now do by putting any interest on the record.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am really grateful for the intervention from the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). I just want the assurance that the Government will not be able to exercise a veto over the information that will be provided via the Committee.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order. As he will know, the powers of the ISC are not a matter for the Chair. However, the Minister on the Front Bench will have heard his comments and will have every opportunity in winding up to respond to that specific point and to provide the entire House with the clarity that I believe it is looking for on that point.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point relates to the point of order from the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), which he did not quite finish. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has in the published register of interests significant monthly payments from X Corp, headquartered in California. That surely should have been a declared interest when making the intervention.

I thank the hon. Member for that point of order. He will know that declarations of interest are not a matter for the Chair. However, he might be advised to refer that to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for investigation.

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have declared these payments in the register, and I apologise if I should have declared them to the House. They are public, they are not hidden and they have no relevance to what I discussed earlier.

The hon. Gentleman will have heard my earlier comment that it is a matter not for the Chair but for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards if he has failed to declare interests during the debate.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Forgive me for detaining the House, but may I ask for your clarification on whether a Member saying that somebody in this House has been bought and paid for is in order?

I did ask the Member to withdraw his comments. He now has the opportunity to do so.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the remark that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth was bought and paid for. I regret the tone that I used.

I thank the hon. Member for putting that on the record. If there are no more points of order, I call Wendy Morton.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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—

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

“Liberation Day!”—that was how Mandelson described the day of Epstein’s release from prison for procuring children to be trafficked and raped. His next message was, “How is freedom feeling?” Epstein replied,

“she feels fresh, firm, and creamy”.

Mandelson’s next reply: “Naughty boy”.

We had not seen those emails, I admit, when the ambassador was appointed, but let us look at what we did know when he was appointed ambassador. We knew at that point that he had consoled this paedophile on his being found guilty and convicted of just one of the many crimes he committed. We also knew that while he was Deputy Prime Minister of this country and Business and Trade Secretary, and while he was carrying the flag of our great nation, he stayed in a convicted paedophile’s flat while on an official visit to New York. How dare he do that while representing this country! Did no one in the Cabinet Office or the Department for Business and Trade—no civil servant or political appointee —know that he had said, “No, I don’t need a hotel, thank you ever so much. I’m going to stay at my friend’s Epstein’s house. Oh, by the way, he happens to be in prison, but I’m going to stay at his house anyway”? There are serious questions about why he was not pursued for misconduct in public office at that point. No one can say that the Labour Government did not know, because I have been a civil servant; I knew where my Ministers were staying when they were abroad. I am not sure that they always wanted me to know, but I knew, and none of them would have ever done that. That is at the heart of the issue with the judgment of the Prime Minister.

On Monday, a Government Minister said that nobody objected when Mandelson was appointed. Look at Hansard: I remember objecting very clearly and repeatedly, because it was clear at that point that Mandelson had repeatedly said that Epstein did not deserve to be in prison, that this was an awful time for him, and how he cared about and was thinking about his good friend.

Why was there no investigation, and why was the vetting not done right? There is no question but that the vetting cannot have been conducted properly. I have been through vetting myself—not as a Minister, I accept, but as a civil servant. I have sat in a room with a rather elderly gentleman for two hours, being asked about my every sexual proclivity, when I lost my virginity, and whether I had taken drugs. I was asked about every single aspect of my life because both apolitical civil servants and politicians in this place should hold themselves accountable and be right for appointment to their role.

It is clear from the debate, and from the evidence put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), that the Prime Minister wanted this appointment made, and because the Prime Minister wanted Mandelson, Mandelson was going to be appointed. We will see when the docs are released how they were able to get around the official vetting, but that brings me to my concerns about another political appointment that was rushed through because the Prime Minister demanded it: that of Jonathan Powell, the National Security Adviser. There are significant concerns about his business interests. There are significant concerns in the House about the fact that there has been no scrutiny of him because he will not come before the House and give evidence. There is also significant concern about his relationships in China and around the world, yet he is permitted—again, while flying the flag of this nation—to conduct secret visits to China, where he met Wang Yi and other senior representatives. The British Government refused to put out any press notice explaining why the visit happened, or even that it happened at all.

As usual, my hon. Friend is making a good speech. I was a special adviser at the Cabinet Office—a great Department with great civil servants. She mentions the cases of Jonathan Powell, and of Lord Mandelson as Deputy Prime Minister. Does she agree that this backhanded way of conducting Government business, without officials present, puts pressure on our great civil servants, and places them in difficult situations? It is not how Government should be run.

I entirely agree with my very good and hon. Friend. I was taken aback by the comments of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who sought to give us a lecture on how Government vetting is undertaken. She kept referring to fast-stream civil servants as those responsible for vetting. Fast stream is a mode of recruitment, not a type of civil servant. It felt as if she was trying to suggest that junior civil servants should take the can for the vetting process that was pursued. I very much hope that is not the case, because it is deeply inappropriate.

The commonality between the appointments of Lord Mandelson and Jonathan Powell is Morgan McSweeney, so I must ask whether Morgan McSweeney is the one who should be held accountable. At this point, it looks as if no one will be held accountable.

This debate is about accountability; everything falls into the lap of the Prime Minister. Does my hon. Friend not find it frankly incredible that the Prime Minister has sent—I say this with the greatest of respect—a junior Minister to the House, when he alone has serious questions to answer? Would it not show real leadership if the Prime Minister came to the Dispatch Box to wind up the debate?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He may also recall that, following Prime Minister’s questions, I had no choice but to make a point of order because the Prime Minister had told this House that every Humble Address that the Labour party had proposed in opposition had a national security protection clause, yet neither of Labour’s last two Humble Addresses in opposition featured the words “national” or “security”, let alone the two put together. In contrast, the Prime Minister put his hand up to me and dismissed me, shaking his arm at me as he left the Chamber, as if the point I was making was not necessary. [Interruption.] And yes, on Monday, Members will also recall that he shouted that I was pathetic for asking why he met with the master of two Chinese spies during his recent trip to China.

I will take the hon. Member’s word for it that those Humble Addresses did not contain those words, but if you take, for example, the Humble Address on Lebedev’s appointment to the House of Lords in 2022, it did not have to contain those words for the Conservative Government to use national security grounds not to provide swathes of documents—they did so without those words even being included. Their response almost mirrored the Freedom of Information Act 2000, in respect of the types of exemptions that should apply. Are you really going to deny that that was the approach—

Order. I count two uses of the word “you”. I have not said anything; it is the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) who has made a comment, but any intervention needs to be via the Chair.

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am obviously out of practice on interventions. Is the hon. Lady aware of that convention?

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I agree that he should hold his Government to exactly those standards. I am very sorry that he missed my point of order—I recognise that it was not a show-stopper—but that is exactly the point I made: national security concerns are implicit in Humble Addresses. If the Government had put such wording in their amendment as “secret or top secret documents cannot be revealed”, I would have said, “Yes, that is absolutely fair.” But that is the point: there is no requirement to stipulate national security concerns, let alone provide some vague wording about international relationships, because that is already provided for. I thank him for confirming exactly my position.

We have touched on China. I hope that when these documents are released, we will see the full extent of Epstein’s relationship not just with the Putin state, but with the Chinese Communist party. I have deep concerns about the way in which Mandelson had a say about the Government’s China policy. There is no question but that he has been influencing it.

Some questions are still unanswered. As I have said almost every day this week, I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary on 5 December to ask for the details of Mandelson’s severance package. These were not complicated questions: what was the detail of the contract, and will it be published; has any non-disclosure agreement to do with it been signed at any point; when did Mandelson receive his final payment, or is he still being paid by the taxpayer; and what were the details of his severance package? Almost two months on, I have received no response from the Cabinet Secretary—in whom, as we have discussed today almost ad nauseum, we do not have confidence to carry out this inquiry. That is not a personal attack; it is recognition of the fact that he works for the Prime Minister and does not reply to straightforward questions from Members of the House.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if she struggles today to get answers to those very basic and straightforward questions, we can draw our own conclusions as to the answers?

Unfortunately, as Members must slowly learn, where there is a vacuum of silence in this place, our constituents, the great people of this country, see conspiracy, and sadly too often they are right. The Paymaster General has committed to get me answers to my letter, and although he is currently having a conversation with someone else, I gently encourage him that I would like answers to those questions on severance pay today from the Dispatch Box, because I raised the issue on Monday and have received no response. It is in the motion, so please can we have those answers?

I also want briefly to reflect on what has happened over the past week. On Sunday, the Labour party informed the media that it could not strip Mandelson of his membership of the Labour party—perhaps the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) would like to intervene on that, as I suspect he has something to say about the Labour party stripping people of their membership. On Monday, the Government told the House that they cannot legislate as that would not be appropriate or possible, and it was too difficult, despite the entire House offering to sit until 4 am to do so. We then had silence from the Government when Members of the House asked them to refer the matter to the police. It was clear from early doors that this was going to end with the police, and hopefully in our courts, as I have argued it should have done back in 2010.

My hon. Friend will recall that during various parliamentary debates in the Chamber on Peter Mandelson, and despite the Prime Minister knowing that he had that relationship, at one stage she and I asked the Minister the simple question of whether the Government would strip Lord Mandelson of the Labour Whip. That question was refused an answer, and they did not remove the Whip. Does that not show a constant lack of action from a Prime Minister who does not have a grip?

One lesson of being in government—there are many—that I hope we have learned is that the writing is normally on the wall. It was very clear from early days that this man was going to let down our country, but those of us who criticised him were told, “This is imaginative; this is inspired. They are putting in place a man who can shake things up and make friends with Donald Trump.” Throughout his persistent behaviour, as more and more became clear, the Prime Minister could have taken decisive action. As I said, it has been clear for a long time that this was not going to end up just with Mandelson disgraced, or with us rightly saying that he should be removed from the other place; it is going to end up with him facing court, I hope. Let me be clear: malfeasance in public office is what he should be tried for, and that carries a life sentence. That is how severe are the crimes that he has been conducting, and I am ashamed that Gordon Brown raised the flag of warning and seems to have had nothing in response to his concerns.

My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech. Since today’s debate started, more information is coming out—we might be at the tip of it and there is much to come out. The Prime Minister has made a significant error of judgment, yet his Back Benchers are still defending him. Does my hon. Friend believe there is a chance that this could cause detriment to the whole Government?

It is very difficult, particularly when a party has such a high number of new MPs—we have been there and experienced it—to feel the mood music, hear the jungle drums, and understand whether something is a precipice or a turning point. For many of us who have been reflecting over the past few days, this has the hallmark of things that we feel we have seen before. We have been here; we have seen this sideshow. It is very difficult, because our integrity is the only thing we take with us when we leave this place. Too many colleagues from across the House have had to learn that over the past few years, because this is a cruel game, and we can find ourselves being thrown out when we do not expect it.

May I say how much I welcome the fact that the manuscript amendment has been put forward? It is a sign that the Government are listening, and I give them credit for doing so. However, this could all have been prevented if the Prime Minister had come before the House on Monday and given a firmer commitment to take action.

Does my hon. Friend agree, particularly following her point about the writing being on the wall, that the Minister, when he wraps up on behalf of the Government, needs to quash any rumours that the Prime Minister is hunkered down in Downing Street and planning a reshuffle to stabilise a sinking ship?

I can give but one comment to those new MPs who may think that a reshuffle is a good thing: it causes only more upset and heartache within the party, and it will not be a solution.

Does the hon. Member agree that the House should be slightly cautious here? We should not just roll over and accept the Government’s manuscript amendment without clear assurances about how far the inquiries will go where they relate to commercial interests, rather than just security interests, as well as a very clear process of reporting and a timetable, so that this is not just a carpet-brushing exercise to get rid of an embarrassing day for the Government.

It is quite clearly the will of the House that that would be beyond unacceptable—it would be a contempt of Parliament, if it happened. I can say—I would like to think that this goes for the entire House—that I have complete confidence in the integrity of gentlemen such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who sits on the ISC. No one would impugn his integrity or question whether he would ensure that he got to the bottom of whatever is necessary. There is no question but that this issue goes so far beyond the vile and inhumane treatment of women; it appears, I am afraid, that Peter Mandelson betrayed not just his colleagues but his own country for the financial interests of others.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will take one last intervention.

Further to that last intervention, we need an assurance that we will have urgency. We have seen victims of child abuse in this country let down by a Government who resisted an inquiry but then agreed to it in a big moment. Today could be a moment like that, when the Government appear to give way, but months then pass with nobody appointed to the inquiry. We need to hear from the Minister that the Government will move with speed to ensure that this information comes out.

My right hon. Friend hits on a point that no one has raised in today’s debate; without it, we would have had a real missed opportunity. As yet, there has been no commitment from the Government as to how quickly files will be turned over to the ISC or how quickly all the documents mandated in this Humble Address will be released. That is vital.

I hope that, as part of any release, the Government will contact the Ministry of Justice and require the release of any additional documents that would be in our national interests, or anything that references Mandelson or any British national in any way. I ask the Minister to confirm that. Any existing documents could be on the ISC’s desk by Friday, so let us ensure that we move quickly.

Let me conclude by touching once again on the incredibly brave women without whom none of this would ever have come out, and Virginia, who obviously is not here today to hear us debate and discuss this important issue. We have to recommit in this place that we will hear women, see women and stand by women who report abuse, because all of us have seen how easily women’s concerns are dismissed, how we are spoken over and how we are ignored, particularly when it comes to men of power.

We have touched on some of the men named in these documents who are commercially very powerful, and there are concerns about who else may come out. No one who has been named in those documents who knew what happened to those women should be allowed to continue to live their lives and make profits as if this did not happen. That must be the main commitment.

I want transparency and I want those documents to come out. But, whether it is a woman in our constituency or someone from another part of the country who comes to us in concern, I want us all to say that we will stand by them. This is a stain on Britain. We must ensure that this never happens again, and that we listen to our women and defend them.

I call the shadow Minister.

This has been an absolutely extraordinary day in British politics. It is not often that there is an audible intake of breath in this Chamber, but we all heard it earlier—that gasp when the Prime Minister admitted that, yes, he had known that Peter Mandelson had had an ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein when he appointed him as our ambassador to Washington. It was a truly extraordinary admission.

The argument that the Prime Minister is now making, which is quite incredible, is that he knew, but he did not know the depth and extent. That implies that there is some reasonable extent to which a person can be in a long-term relationship with the world’s most famous paedophile and still be appointed our ambassador to Washington. It implies that a person can, to a certain reasonable depth, be involved with the world’s most corrupt man and still be appointed His Majesty’s ambassador. The Prime Minister is now asking to be taken on trust. Well, after this whole sordid affair, I am afraid that is just not good enough any more.

The Prime Minister knew that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s house while he was in jail for child prostitution. Did that not set some alarm bells ringing in the Prime Minister’s mind, or is that not deep enough a relationship to have worried him? My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) told the House earlier that the British Government were warned by one of our closest international allies about their deep concerns before Mandelson’s appointment. Did that not set some alarm bells ringing in the Prime Minister’s mind? No, instead he appointed a man who twice had to resign over corruption, and now—unbelievably—his argument is, “If only there had been some sign that Peter Mandelson was like this?” It is unbelievable, and this may be just the beginning.

We now really need the Minister to answer a specific point that Ministers ducked and refused to address earlier—the whole House will hear if he does not answer. Will the Government agree to a full investigation into Mandelson’s behaviour while he was our ambassador in Washington? On 27 February last year, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir—a client of Mandelson’s company, Global Counsel. That meeting was not recorded in the PM’s register of meetings and emerged only later. Palantir was then awarded a £240 million contract by the Government as a direct award rather than through a competition. We need the Cabinet Secretary to examine the circumstances of that contract. Does the Minister agree—yes or no?

Why was that prime ministerial meeting not recorded in the normal way? How many more such lobbyist meetings were there? What other inside information was shared with Mandelson’s clients? Will the Minister now agree to a full inquiry into Mandelson’s time as our ambassador—yes or no? Furthermore, can the Minister reassure the House that the proper process has been followed for all No. 10’s other recent appointments? Can he give the House that reassurance very clearly?

Before I come to the manuscript amendment, let me say something positive about some of the contributions we have heard today from Labour Back Benchers. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) gave a genuinely superb speech, in which he said that he would not be able to look victims in the eye if he voted for the Government’s amendment. It was a brave speech, but he was not completely alone. We also heard sensible comments from other Labour Back Benchers, including the hon. Members for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), all of whom pointed out that the Government’s cover-up amendment was simply not going to fly. I think the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) actually said that she would be ashamed to vote for it, and she was totally right.

All those Labour Back Benchers have shown their character today, but what a contrast with the Prime Minister’s behaviour. He is not here, and he has still not apologised for appointing Mandelson. A few hours ago he was telling this House that these documents could not be published—he said at PMQs that the Leader of the Opposition was outrageous and silly for even asking—yet here we are, just a few hours later, and the Government have had a total U-turn because they know that they cannot get their own people to vote for this shameful proposed cover-up.

The Prime Minister has not been decisive—he only sacked Peter Mandelson because we forced him to. He said again and again that he had full confidence in him, and I think many voters will be thinking, “Why on earth was the Prime Minister so deeply in hock to this man?” The truth is that Mandelson was not out on a limb over in Washington; he was a deeply embedded part of the Prime Minister’s operation. He was involved in the selection of some of the MPs who are in the Chamber today. He was involved in the Prime Minister’s reshuffle, and was part of the “toxic culture” in No. 10 that the Health Secretary—the Labour Health Secretary—has warned about. Most shamefully of all, a former Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, tried to get documents about some of the things that Peter Mandelson had done and was rebuffed. Funnily enough, those documents could not be found. Whatever people think of Gordon Brown, if they are choosing Peter Mandelson over him, they are making the wrong decision.

I now come to the manuscript amendment that has been hastily produced by the Government. For the people watching at home, this is an amendment to an amendment—a U-turn on top of a U-turn. Given the chaos we have seen from the Government, we now need three clear assurances, and we will all be listening to the Minister when he comes to the Dispatch Box. First, we need an assurance that everything that people in No. 10 do not want to publish will be sent to the ISC in unredacted form. Secondly, we need an assurance that it will be the ISC, not No. 10, that determines the handling of those documents. This comes back to the very good question posed by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington: if the ISC says that documents deemed sensitive by No. 10 can be released, will it be able to release them without any veto from No. 10?

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important that we get clarity from the Government on that point, because there could be individual documents, as opposed to a report? The independent committee can produce a report, but we need to know whether individual documents that could be challenged could be put out if the committee felt it was correct to do so.

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I want to know whether the Minister agrees that the ISC should be able to give the gist of documents, even if they are not fully released.

Thirdly on this hastily proposed manuscript amendment, can we be reassured that we will not be waiting for months—that this will not turn out like the grooming gangs, where nothing happens in the end? Can we have an assurance that we will not be waiting for ages, and that there will be a clear and short timeframe for getting the documents published and to the ISC?

There is a fourth point, which is that there is likely to be a sizeable volume of documents for the ISC to review. Will the Minister reassure this House that the ISC will be given the resources it needs to do its job?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point—he is completely correct.

Today, I actually feel quite a lot of sympathy for Labour Back Benchers. Once again, they have been put in a totally impossible position by the Prime Minister and his adviser Morgan McSweeney. The Government wanted the same people who had appointed Mandelson in the first place to be able to control the release of information about the extraordinary way in which that appointment was made. I feel for Labour Back Benchers, because those people in Downing Street are the same people who told them they had to vote to cut the winter fuel payment because there would be a run on the pound if they did not. They are the same people in No. 10 who told Labour Back Benchers that they would not change their position on the family farm tax, and then—after people had killed themselves—changed their position on it. They are the same people who got Labour Back Benchers to vote against an inquiry into grooming gangs. That is telling, because that was another occasion on which this weak Prime Minister put his own political interests ahead of respecting victims.

Today, we learned a little bit more about the character of our Prime Minister. As a result, it is clear from listening to the debate today that even some Labour MPs are asking themselves the same question as the public out there: doesn’t this country deserve better?

I beg to move a manuscript amendment, to add to the end of amendment (a):

“which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.”

I start by thanking everyone who has contributed to the debate—the tone was overwhelmingly constructive, serious, and aimed at getting to the truth. I want to thank a few Members in particular, beginning with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who got the tone exactly right, asked a number of serious questions that I will come to, and reminded us of the importance of the matter at hand. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop); while he disagrees with me, he did so agreeably, and put his case very well and with passion. I also thank the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith), who reminded us of the origins of the Humble Address—when I was a political adviser on the Brexit team in opposition, they looked a bit more clever than they do today. I thank him for his speech and the spirit in which he made it. In particular, I highlight the incredibly powerful and commanding speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), who rightly brought the voice of victims to this House. She did so brilliantly, and I thank her for that.

It is clear that Members in all parts of the House share the public’s anger at Mandelson’s treachery, lies and deceit. As the Prime Minister said earlier:

“Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament and my party.”

He betrayed our Government.

Will the Minister give way?

I will just make a little progress, then I will give way.

Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister. He lied during the vetting process, which I will return to, because a number of Members raised it, and I suspect he is still lying now. That is why, since new information came to light over the weekend, the Prime Minister has acted in a number of ways.

I will give way, just let me complete this point.

On Monday, the Prime Minister instructed the Cabinet Secretary to investigate all papers released by the US Department of Justice. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister also made a statement to this House. On Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary decided to refer certain material to the police with the Prime Minister’s support, and subsequently the police have launched a full investigation, with which we will co-operate fully. That investigation must go everywhere the evidence takes it.

It is pretty underhand of the Minister to make himself the champion of public anger about the person Mandelson was, because I can tell the Minister that the House is angry—both sides of it—not just with Mandelson, but with the Prime Minister for appointing him in the first place.

As the Prime Minister has said many times, if he had known what he knows now, he would not have had Mandelson within a million miles of Government, and that is absolutely right.

I will try to make the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), but in a less emotional way. Today, the Prime Minister was asked directly,

“did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?”

He replied, “Yes, it did.” The Minister says that Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister, but the point is that the Prime Minister knew that the relationship was ongoing. Even if Mandelson lied about some other aspects of the relationship, can the Minister not see that the fact that there was any ongoing relationship at all with a man who had been imprisoned for paedophilia and prostitution was an impossible position to defend? No subsequent lies or revelations alter the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson when he knew that he had been in that ongoing relationship.

As the Prime Minister has said, he was lied to repeatedly by Mandelson. I will come to the vetting process in a minute, but the due diligence is within scope of this Humble Address. It will be released. The House will be able to see the process for itself.

Alongside further steps that the Prime Minister has taken in the past week, he has recommended to the King that Mandelson be removed from the Privy Council. He has instructed that legislation be drawn up—this was a point that the hon. Member for North Dorset raised—to strip Mandelson of his title and to make wider reform of the House of Lords process. In answer to the question raised earlier, that legislation is imminent and it will be given Government time. It will be brought to this House as soon as possible. Frankly, I wish it was already here now, but it will come very soon.

I will give way first to the right hon. Member.

Before the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador, he was appointed as a strategic adviser, a consultant, an advocate and a planner for the 2024 Labour party general election campaign. May I suggest that he was appointed—Government Members know this to be true—because he was treacherous, deceitful, a liar and a master manipulator in the political dark arts? That is why the Prime Minister appointed him. There is no defence, is there?

Just to be clear, he was not appointed to any role in the 2024 election campaign. I remember that campaign very well. Let me clear up two other points that were raised in the debate. As Members made very clear earlier, Mandelson had no role in candidate selection at all. That is done by the national executive committee, and through the rule book. He had absolutely no role in it. [Interruption.] Let me finish this point. He had absolutely no role or say in any reshuffle either. Members keep repeating this, but it is absolutely, fundamentally untrue.

Order. Who is the Minister giving way to? Four Members are standing.

I give way to the hon. Lady.

Let us suppose that the Minister was appointing a new member of staff and he knew that a candidate had twice lost his job in the past because of misdemeanours. If he also knew that that candidate had continued a relationship with a convicted paedophile, would the Minister give him a job?

The hon. Lady tempts me into hypotheticals that I am not going to get into. [Interruption.]

I am going to make some progress. I will give way later, but a number of questions have been raised about vetting, and I want to respond to them. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), outlined the process; I want to clarify that, but she was entirely right in what she said.

Before Mandelson’s appointment, there were two distinct and separate processes. The first took place in the Cabinet Office, where due diligence was followed in exactly the usual fashion for this type of appointment. The second, the national security vetting, was undertaken by UK Security Vetting. I want to be very clear with the House: none of that was skipped, and nothing was removed from the usual process. As the Paymaster General said earlier, we have strengthened the vetting process further.

The Prime Minister said clearly today that when he appointed Peter Mandelson to the job as His Majesty’s ambassador, he knew that he had an ongoing relationship with the paedophile Epstein. Can the Minister tell us what sort of relationship he thinks would be acceptable when appointing such a person?

As the Prime Minister made clear, he was lied to repeatedly by Peter Mandelson on this. Information about that is in the vetting report, which will be published for the House.

The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said that he knew. The Minister says that documents such as the vetting report will be released, but all that is irrelevant. We are not interested in what the report says, because the Prime Minister said that he knew. The question for the Minister is this: why did the Prime Minister feel that it was appropriate to appoint Peter Mandelson to be one of the most senior ambassadors in the world? That has nothing to do with vetting; it goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s judgment.

Before Mandelson was appointed, there were obviously reports linking him with Epstein. That was looked into as part of the vetting process. Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister and hid information. When new information came out, the Prime Minister removed him. This information will come out.

I am going to make some progress, and deal with the motion.

Will the Minister give way?

I will give way to my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] She is the first Member behind me to whom I have given way.

Order. In fairness to the Minister, he has given way time and again to Conservative Members, and now, quite rightly, he is giving way to the hon. Lady. Don’t feel that you have been hard done by, please!

Does the Minister agree that we are here today because of the brave women who have spoken out and led us here? Does he agree that we have a responsibility—a shared responsibility as a House—to make sure that no stone is unturned, and that as a Government we will make absolutely sure that the victims at the heart of the paedophile Epstein’s crimes get the justice that they deserve, we will continue to call out this behaviour wherever we see it, and we will do everything we can, now that we are in government, to halve violence against women and girls? It is too little too late, but it is needed now more than ever.

I entirely agree. I could not have put it anywhere near as well as that—and, as I said earlier, my hon. Friend made an incredibly powerful speech earlier. She quoted Virginia Giuffre at length, which was an extraordinarily powerful way in which to make the point, and she made it better than anyone, because it is the victims whom we should have in mind.

I will give way once more, and then I will come to the motion.

One of my concerns has been that when Mandelson was our ambassador in Washington DC, he was responsible for a very large embassy. There may have been members of the Foreign Office staff there who had survived rape or sexual assault, or there may well have been sexual assaults during his tenure as ambassador. Can the Minister confirm that Foreign Office Ministers have reviewed all human resources decisions that Mandelson made while he was there as ambassador, to make sure that any women who had concerns about treatment, the way that they were spoken to or the things that they reported, received the support that they deserved?

Obviously anyone who made any allegation or report such as that would be treated seriously. I will take that up with Foreign Office Ministers and come back to the hon. Lady, because she raises an incredibly serious point.

I will give way one more time to the former Attorney General, and then I will move on.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way; I know he wants to move on to the motion, but just before he does so, I would be grateful for some reassurance from him on a point that was raised by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. The Minister has moved the manuscript amendment. If the House passes this motion with the manuscript amendment, a volume of material will reach the Intelligence and Security Committee. He knows that our administrative resources are limited, and we do not know what volume of material may be coming our way. The House will expect us to do a thorough job and we will seek to do one, but can he reassure me, and the House, that the Committee will have the additional administrative resources, if it needs them, to consider that material properly?

I thank the right and learned Member for his speech earlier and for his point. Absolutely, yes; I completely recognise the point he is making. A lot of documents are covered by this motion—that is not a complaint; it is an observation. The ISC has the authority and respect of this House, and it would need resources to go with this task. If that is agreed, we will ensure that it gets those resources in the usual way.

Could the Minister confirm on the Floor of the House that the Government will also include details of how they managed conflicts of interest between Peter Mandelson’s shareholding in Global Counsel and his activities as ambassador? Specifically, could he look at the background and come back to the House about two contracts, one to Anduril technologies and one to Palantir? Those were direct-award contracts, and at least one of those companies was a client of Global Counsel.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that and, as I mentioned at the beginning, for the way that he went about his speech. That will all be within the scope of the Humble Address. If there are specific further points regarding direct procurements which the Cabinet Office needs to look into, I will write to him and come back to him on them, because that is a fair point.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. The Humble Address is obviously about Lord Mandelson’s appointment. However, the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) was about two contracts, at least one of which, by direct award, went to a business that was a client of Global Counsel. The Prime Minister met that company while in Washington and it did not appear on his register of interests. Will the Minister assure the House that the Cabinet Secretary will look into the process that led to that direct award?

As I said, everything in the Humble Address will be dealt with. On that specific point, I will follow up with the Cabinet Secretary and write to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith).

I will get on to the motion, and then I promise I will give way.

As I said, the Government accept the spirit, purpose and intent of the Opposition’s motion, and we want to provide transparency and drain the swamp of Mandelson’s lies. Our amendment has two important points to it: one on national security and one on foreign relations. I want to cover those quickly, and then I will take interventions.

National security, as the Prime Minister has said from this Dispatch Box—and has said to me more times over the years I have known him than I can remember—is his No. 1 priority, and he will never compromise on that. That is why we wanted it in the motion and why we put the amendment before the House. There is precedent for that in a Humble Address. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) mentioned earlier, our Humble Address regarding Lebedev included the words:

“in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security”.

Our intention was to abide with that spirit and to make a clear point about national security. I will come on to how that will be treated by the ISC and the Cabinet Secretary in a second.

On international relations, as the Prime Minister said, these documents, which are significant in number, could well touch on sensitive issues concerning intelligence, trade or relations with other countries. For example, we would not want to release inadvertently information about our red lines in trade agreements, about peace negotiations and our position on things such as Ukraine, the middle east or Sudan, or information about sensitive assessments of our allies and the diplomatic conversations on which our lives depend. The point of the amendment is that we are trying to address that and to make it clear to the House, and we are trying to balance transparency with national security. That is what is most significant.

I mean no disrespect to the Intelligence and Security Committee, but the Minister will have heard the points of order that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I made earlier. We need to know that there is a timetable for this inquiry, that it will not rule out specifically commercial interests such as Palantir and fail to investigate them, and that it will investigate the whole web of influence that Peter Mandelson had over so much in Government, which has brought about this dreadful position in which we appointed somebody who is a friend of a paedophile to be the ambassador to Washington. Many people watching today’s debate will not be happy that Parliament is merely shoving this issue off to one of its Committees, because they think there should be a wider public interest inquiry into the whole affair.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. The police investigation will go wherever it needs to go. It will cover any criminality or allegations thereof. That is the right way to do it, and nothing will be hidden.

Will the Minister give way?

I am going to make some progress, because time is pushing on. I will give way in a second.

Let me come to the manuscript amendment. We will agree with the ISC how it is going to work with us and provide scrutiny, and I welcome the commitment made earlier. As the Paymaster General set out, the process for deciding what falls in scope will be led by the Cabinet Secretary and supported by Cabinet Office lawyers working with the ISC. The Cabinet Secretary will take independent advice on the decision he has taken, and it will take two forms—first, through independent KCs, and secondly, through scrutiny of the approach he is taking, working hand in hand with the ISC. The Cabinet Secretary will write to the ISC to set out that process. He will meet members of the Committee regularly to ensure that they are content with it. In line with the manuscript amendment, papers that are determined to be prejudicial to national security or international relations will be referred to the ISC, which is independent, rigorous and highly respected. The ISC will then decide what to do with the material that it is sent.

Just for further clarity, people are concerned that there will be a decision made by the Government, in the form of the Cabinet Secretary, about what is referred to the ISC. We are keen to know that the bulk of the documents will be in the hands of the ISC, which can make the decision about what needs to be kept private and what should be made public. Can the Minister clarify that the ISC will have control over what needs to be kept private and what can be made public?

The release of information will be done in the way I have just set out. Either it will be done through the Cabinet Secretary working with independent lawyers or, if the material is deemed potentially to conflict with national security or foreign relations, it will be handed to the ISC, which is independent and can make a decision. To the point that my hon. Friend made earlier—this is really crucial—there will not be political involvement from Ministers or No. 10 in this process. The Cabinet Secretary and the ISC will work on it with lawyers.

I really must push the Minister, because he is giving conflicting messages. At one stage, he said that the direct contract award will be in scope of the ISC, without committing to any timescales. He has now said that the scope of the release of documents is a matter for the Cabinet Secretary, with no political involvement. As a political Minister, he has stood at the Dispatch Box to say that the direct contract award will be in scope. Will it be in scope or not?

Any correspondence involving Peter Mandelson is within scope. As I say, that will be looked at by the Cabinet Secretary, who will make decisions with independent lawyers and working with the ISC.

Can I give an assurance that we in the ISC are very confident that we can do an effective job on this? It is worth pointing out that we cannot be told what we can and cannot publish. That will be a matter and a decision for us. May I ask for an assurance, following on from what the Minister has just said, that there will be no block whatsoever on the documents that the ISC should be getting?

Yes, I can confirm that. I thank my hon. Friend, who has huge expertise. We will work with the ISC on this.

I am not going to give way any more. There are four or five minutes to go. I will make some progress, if that is okay.

As the Prime Minister mentioned today, there will have to be discussions with the Metropolitan police over material. The Metropolitan police has issued a statement today on material that will be released. I confirm to the House that material will not be released today, because of the conversation with the Metropolitan police, but it will be released as quickly as possible, in line with the process set out before the House.

The Minister has set out the difference between national security matters and issues which may be embarrassing to the Government—let’s face it, practically anything could damage international relations with Donald Trump; who knows what he is going to take offence at—but the process he has just outlined implies that the Cabinet Secretary will scrutinise every bit of information before deciding whether it gets released or whether it gets to the ISC. How long will that take? Will he give us an assurance on the volume of material he anticipates sending to the ISC and the timetable? What will be the deadline for releasing that material, either into the public domain or to the ISC?

As I say, the timeline will be as soon as possible. We want to get on with this. There is a lot of material to go through. We will get to this as quickly as possible. Other Humble Addresses have taken a number of weeks or months. We want to be as quick as possible and we will work with the ISC as soon as we can to get it progressing. I hope the hon. Lady welcomes the spirit with which we take that on.

No more, I am afraid. I am so sorry.

I just want to deal with two more points. On a public inquiry, which a number of Members mentioned, as I say, there is an ongoing police inquiry that has the freedom to go where it wants and the co-operation of everyone in Government. We believe that that, along with the process we have set out, is the right way to proceed.

Will the Minister clarify that the documentation will go to the ISC, and that the ISC, not the Cabinet Secretary, will be the decision maker on risk to national security and international relationships, and on what should be in the public domain?

Let me try one more time. It will either be made public by the Cabinet Secretary, or it will go to the ISC and a decision will be made through the Committee. It will be done with the independence, resources and—

No, I am winding up now.

It is absolutely right for the House to have debated this incredibly important issue, and I thank right hon. and hon. Members for the spirit in which they have done so. The lies, venality and treachery of Mandelson shame this House. I, and the Prime Minister and I know hon. Members all around me, have nothing but contempt for the way Mandelson acted and lied to the British people. I am glad that this will now be shown to the British people. I share the anger and disgust of so many Members. We will comply with the amended motion and we will update the House on progress. With that in mind, I commend the manuscript amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Manuscript amendment (i) to amendment (a) made.

Amendment (a), as amended, agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s Ambassador to the United States of America, including but not confined to the Cabinet Office due diligence which was passed to Number 10, the Conflict of Interest Form Lord Mandelson provided to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), material the FCDO and the Cabinet Office provided to UK Security Vetting about Lord Mandelson’s interests in relation to Global Counsel, including his work in relation to Russia and China, and his links to Jeffrey Epstein, papers for, and minutes of, meetings relating to the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, electronic communications between the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff and Lord Mandelson, and between ministers and Lord Mandelson, in the six months prior to his appointment, minutes of meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers in the six months prior to his appointment, all information on Lord Mandelson provided to the Prime Minister prior to his assurance to this House on 10 September 2025 that ‘full due process was followed during this appointment’, electronic communications and minutes of all meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers, Government officials and special advisers during his time as Ambassador, and the details of any payments made to Lord Mandelson on his departure as Ambassador and from the Civil Service except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.”

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This relates to the point the Minister made about the Metropolitan police asking that certain documents not be released, in case they prejudice a trial or investigation. You know as well as I do, Sir, the importance of privilege to this place. Will your office and counsel work with the Cabinet Office to ensure that the rights and privileges of Members of this House are protected?

Just to sum up, the Metropolitan police have no jurisdiction over what this House may wish to do. It will be a matter of whether or not the Government provide the information. I want to let Members know that the police cannot dictate to this House. I will leave it at that; I am not going to continue the debate, which has been a long and important one. Let us move on.

I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026. The Ayes were 392 and the Noes were 116, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]