PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Engagements - 4 February 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

On World Cancer Day, we are publishing our national cancer plan to transform care for patients. It means investment in cutting-edge technology, so that our exceptional frontline staff can give world-class care. It funds more tests and scans, meaning faster diagnosis and treatment, and tailored treatment in specialist centres. We will cover the costs of every family whose child needs to travel for cancer care, because their focus should only be on recovery, not worrying about money.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Up and down the country, this Government are restoring pride in place by investing in our high streets—the beating heart of our communities—yet in Paisley and Renfrewshire South, the SNP-led Renfrewshire council has done the opposite. It has sat on its hands while the owners of the Paisley Centre, who received planning permission to develop the centre some years ago, have sought support to transform our town centre. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is only the SNP’s lack of ambition and failure of leadership that is letting Paisley down, and will he work with me to restore pride in Paisley town centre?

My hon. Friend is a superb champion for Paisley. Her constituents deserve a Scottish Government who match her dedication. For our part, we have delivered a record funding settlement. We are investing £280 million in Pride in Place across 14 Scottish communities. We have secured shipbuilding on the Clyde for over a decade and have just announced an AI growth zone in Lanarkshire. The choice is clear: a third decade of failure under the SNP, or real change for Scotland under Anas Sarwar.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

The whole House will be disgusted by the latest revelations about Jeffrey Epstein. All of us want to see his victims get justice, but the political decision to appoint Epstein’s close associate, Peter Mandelson, as Britain’s ambassador to Washington goes to the very heart of this Prime Minister’s judgment. When he made that appointment, was he aware that Mandelson had continued his friendship even after Epstein’s conviction for child prostitution?

Let me start where I must: with the victims of Epstein. All our thoughts are with them. Our thoughts are also with all those who lost jobs, savings and livelihoods in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash. To learn that there was a Cabinet Minister leaking sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 crash is beyond infuriating, and I am as angry as the public and any Member of this House.

Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament and my party. He lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein, before and during his tenure as ambassador. I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near Government. That is why yesterday the Cabinet Secretary, with my support, took the decision to refer material to the police, and there is now a criminal investigation. I have instructed my team to draft legislation to strip Mandelson of his title, and wider legislation to remove disgraced peers. This morning I have agreed with His Majesty the King that Mandelson should be removed from the list of Privy Counsellors on the grounds that he has brought the reputation of the Privy Council into disrepute.

I asked the Prime Minister a very specific question. Did he know that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after the conviction? He says, “If I knew then what I know now”—but he did know. In January 2024, a journalist from the Financial Times informed the Prime Minister that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s house even after that conviction for child prostitution. Did the Prime Minister conveniently forget this fact, or did he decide that it was a risk worth taking?

As the House would expect, we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services. What was not known was the sheer depth and the extent of the relationship. Mandelson lied about that to everyone for years. New information was published in September, showing that the relationship was materially different from what we had been led to believe. When the new information came to light, I sacked him, but we did go through a due diligence exercise. The points that are being put to me were dealt with within that exercise.

In response to the Humble Address this afternoon, I intend to make sure that all the material is published. The only exemptions are anything that would prejudice national security—my first duty is obviously to keep this country safe, and when we drafted Humble Addresses in opposition, we always included an exemption for national security—or that would prejudice international relations. You and the House will appreciate, Mr Speaker, that in the course of discussions country to country there are very sensitive issues of security, intelligence and trade that cannot be disclosed without compromising the relationship between the two countries, or a third country.

So that I can be totally open with the House, I should also disclose that the Metropolitan police have been in touch with my office this morning to raise issues about anything that would prejudice their investigations. We are in discussion with them about that, and I hope to be able to update the House, but I do think I should make that clear to the House at this point, because those discussions are ongoing.

Does that clear it up?

I will come to the Humble Address in a moment, but the Prime Minister cannot blame the process. He did know. It was on Google. If the Conservative research department could find this information out, why couldn’t No. 10?

On 10 September, when we knew this, I asked the Prime Minister about it at the Dispatch Box, and he gave Mandelson his full confidence—not once but twice. He only sacked him after pressure from us. I am asking the Prime Minister something very specific, not about the generalities of the full extent. Can the Prime Minister tell us: did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?

Yes, it did. As a result, various questions were put to him. I intend to disclose to the House—the national security and prejudice to international relations on one side; I want to make sure that the House sees the full documentation so it will see for itself the extent to which, time and time again, Mandelson completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein and lied throughout the process, including in response to the due diligence.

What the Prime Minister has just said is shocking. How can he stand up there saying that he knew, but that he just asked Peter Mandelson if the security vetting was true or false? This was a man who had been sacked from Cabinet twice already for unethical behaviour. That is absolutely shocking.

That is why, later today, my party will call on the Government to release all documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment, not just the ones the Prime Minister wants us to see; this Government are trying to sabotage that release with an amendment to let him choose what we see—the man who appointed Mandelson in the first place. Labour MPs now have to decide if they want to be accessories to his cover-up. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that he will not remove the Whip if they refuse to vote for his whitewash amendment?

The first exemption is in relation to anything that could compromise national security. That is not a small matter, and many Members on the Opposition Benches will know precisely why that needs to be an exemption. When we were drafting Humble Addresses in opposition, we always made sure that that exemption was included because we knew how important it was to the then Government. I do not think I have seen a Humble Address without that exemption. Just to be clear, to vote to release something that would prejudice national security is wrong in principle.

The second exemption is in relation to things that would prejudice international relations. There will be discussions about security, intelligence and trade that are highly sensitive to the two countries involved, and to third countries. [Interruption.] Well, the Opposition have to ask themselves whether they want to vote to prejudice our national security. In fairness, I do not think that they do.

Let me reassure the House that the process for deciding what falls into those categories will not be a political process; it will be led by the Cabinet Secretary, supported by Government legal teams. They will be looking at the question of prejudice and they will be making that decision.

The only additional thing I want to put before the House, because there was a discussion this morning with the Metropolitan police, is that we are in discussions with them about any material that they are concerned will prejudice their investigation. We are at an early stage of that discussion, but I did not want the House not to know that that discussion is going on.

The Prime Minister is talking about national security. The national security issue was appointing Mandelson in the first place. What he has said about the Humble Address is a red herring. Let me tell those Labour MPs who were not here in the last Parliament: Humble Addresses already exempt genuine national security issues. This is not about national security; this is about the Prime Minister’s job security. His amendment lets him withhold anything to do with international relations, but this whole appointment is to do with international relations, so if Government Members are voting for it, they are voting for the cover-up. If the Prime Minister is serious about national security concerns, he should ask the Intelligence and Security Committee to decide which documents should be released. Will he commit to doing so here and now?

I have set out the process. It will not be a political process. It will be led by the Cabinet Secretary, supported by the Government legal teams. I am pleased that the right hon. Lady, I think, now accepts that at least the first exemption that we have written into the amendment—in relation to prejudicing national security—is the right one.

Given the breadth of what has been asked for, we are doing everything we can to make sure that this information is fully transparent and disclosed, but the right hon. Lady and Opposition Members behind her will understand from their own experience in government the sensitivity of information about security, intelligence and trade relations that is inevitably caught in exchanges of this nature, and it is right that anything that prejudices—not touches on, but prejudices—international relations is protected within the disclosure.

If that was really the case, the Prime Minister would not mind if the ISC had a look. Let us be clear: he says the involvement of the Cabinet Secretary makes the process non-political, but that does not make it independent. What we want is an independent look. The ISC is independent, whereas the Cabinet Secretary works for him. We know that there will be a cover-up, because this matter implicates the Prime Minister and his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, a protégé of Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister chose to inject Mandelson’s poison into the heart of his Government on the advice of Morgan McSweeney. His catastrophic lack of judgment—he is telling us now that he did know—has harmed the special relationship. It has endangered national security—it is not the Humble Address; it is him—compromised our diplomacy, and embarrassed our nation. After all this, does he have the same full confidence in Morgan McSweeney that he had in Peter Mandelson?

Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team. He helped me change the Labour party and win an election. Of course I have confidence in him.

Whatever is slung across this Dispatch Box, I do not think it is right for the Cabinet Secretary to be denigrated in that way, or to suggest that he would be involved in a cover-up. There is the politics that comes over the Dispatch Boxes, but I honestly do not think it is right to impugn the Cabinet Secretary in that way. I suspect that, in their heart of hearts, many on the Conservative Benches would agree.

I am as angry as anyone about what Mandelson has been up to. The disclosures that have been made this week of him passing on sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 financial crash are utterly shocking and appalling. He has betrayed our country. He has lied repeatedly; he is responsible for a litany of deceit, but this moment demands not just anger but action, and that is why we have moved quickly by referring material to the police, publishing legislation so that we can remove titles from disgraced politicians, and stripping Mandelson of his Privy Counsellorship. That is what the public expect, and that is what we will do.

May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend? She campaigns tirelessly to stop these antisocial, dangerous bikes terrorising communities. Our Crime and Policing Bill will mean that police can seize bikes without issuing a warning, and can destroy them. Product safety law means that authorities have the powers to intervene to stop the sale of unsafe e-bikes, but I share her determination to get these bikes off our streets.

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

May I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister for your responses to my tribute to Jim Wallace on Monday, and may I urge the whole House to read the wonderful tributes paid to Jim in the other place yesterday?

I have been thinking about how victims of Jeffrey Epstein, and the victims’ families, must feel. We are hearing more and more stories of rich, powerful men currying favour with a paedophile sex trafficker; for example, we hear of Peter Mandelson sending Government secrets to help Epstein enrich himself further. Mandelson was made ambassador to the United States, even after his links to Epstein had been extensively reported by both the Financial Times and “Channel 4 News”. Given that the Prime Minister now admits that he knew about those links before he gave such an important job to one of Epstein’s closest friends, can he tell us whether he thought at all about Epstein’s victims?

We looked at the material. There was a process, and the right hon. Gentleman will understand that there was then a security vetting exercise as well. That is why I started by saying that all our thoughts are with the victims of Epstein. The right hon. Gentleman is right to express anger at the material that has recently come out in relation to sensitive information in the aftermath of the ’08 crash. Yesterday, working with the Cabinet Secretary, we referred the material to the police, which has led to the criminal investigation that will follow.

I think the victims of Jeffrey Epstein deserve far better than that; they deserve Peter Mandelson not being appointed in the first place. 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, so we need a full public inquiry, both to get justice for the victims and to protect our national security. The Polish Government think Epstein may have been spying for Vladimir Putin. Is the Prime Minister concerned that Peter Mandelson may have been leaking state secrets not just to a paedophile American financier, but also a Russian agent?

The right hon. Gentleman talks of a public inquiry. Obviously, the focus now has to be on the criminal investigation, which has started. As he knows, that investigation will go wherever the evidence leads it. I have made it absolutely clear that the Government will co-operate, as he would expect, with that criminal investigation, wherever it goes.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, and confirm that we are looking at how we can strengthen the support in place for these children, so that no child falls between the cracks. Free breakfast clubs mean that every child is fed and ready to learn. I am delighted to see that there are three more in her constituency, as she says. I also want to mention Rushbrook primary academy, Oasis Academy Aspinal, Longsight community primary and St Bernard’s Roman Catholic primary school, Manchester. All will soon be operating free breakfast clubs in Gorton and Denton.

The victims and survivors of Epstein and his circle of the over-privileged elite are at the forefront of my mind here and now. Mandelson, we now know, described Epstein’s release from prison after he was sentenced for child sex offences as “Liberation day”. This man’s association with Epstein was known when the Prime Minister personally appointed him as the UK’s ambassador to the USA. How can we trust the Prime Minister’s judgment, and if we question that, how can we trust him enough for him to remain Prime Minister?

Can I join in the right hon. Lady’s disgust at the comments she just read out? To be absolutely clear, the scale and the extent of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein was not disclosed—on the contrary. It was not just not disclosed; Mandelson lied throughout the process and beyond the process. He lied, he lied, and he lied again to my team.

The deal we have struck with the EU means lower prices at the check-out, more choice on the shelf, and more money in people’s pockets. It is good for British fishers and farmers, who face less red tape selling our world-class produce into a crucial market. It comes alongside the opportunity for young people to work and travel across Europe, the work that we are doing to cut energy bills, and closer work on defence. All of that is opposed by Reform and the Tories, who sold the myth, botched Brexit, and left families and businesses paying the price.

Let me be absolutely clear about this: as soon as there were any allegations of wrongdoing by Phil Shiner, I had absolutely nothing to do with him.

I am delighted that Aldershot will be hosting Armed Forces Day; it has a hard-working Labour MP and Labour council. Our historic defence spending uplift must be an engine for growth and jobs in the United Kingdom, which is why we have committed to spending an extra £2.5 billion with small and medium-sized enterprises. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital that we work in lockstep with our allies, particularly in Europe, to enhance and align our defence capabilities, and we are therefore working at pace to identify the most effective mechanisms for greater multilateral co-operation.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to ending the use of all asylum hotels; there are now just under 200, compared with the 400 under the previous Government. Where military sites are used, the safety and security of local communities is our priority.

It is because of strong local Labour MPs like my hon. Friend that towns like Hartlepool, treated as an afterthought by the Conservatives, are having their future restored. We are making billions more available so that councils can properly fund social care, and we are driving down the cost of living for parents and their children, including with three free breakfast clubs in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and more than 3,000 children there no longer incapacitated by the two-child limit. That is the difference a Labour Government make.

I thank the hon. Member for raising that matter; I know how important it is for her constituents. We have taken measures in relation to strengthening oversight and the control we have, and we will not hesitate to go further. I will make sure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.

I thank the commanding officer and crew of HMS Duncan for their service, and I also thank my hon. Friend. I remember meeting the brilliant workforce in his region, and I know that the Defence Ministers will be delighted to do the same. Our record defence spending is supporting jobs and growth across the north-east. We invested £200 million in Octric Semiconductors in his constituency last year. As we increase defence spending, the north-east will play a major role, securing good, skilled jobs for generations to come.

The hon. Member is right to raise that. Obviously, we will support the police with their investigation, but we will also press on with our work to halve violence against women and girls, which is very much about putting in place the support that is needed for all victims of violence. That is a crucial part of our work and I hope that we can work across the House in support of that.

I join my hon. Friend in her pride in the vote to lift half a million children out of poverty, after hundreds of thousands were plunged into poverty by the Conservative party when they were in government. On her point about temporary accommodation, she is right that every child deserves a safe, warm and secure home. We are investing a record £3.5 billion in homelessness services and £950 million in local authority housing funds to deliver better quality temporary accommodation.

I thank the hon. Member for his question and for his tireless campaigning on behalf of Christopher and also Fiona, who, as he points out, is with us today. Christopher’s death was a tragedy, and I agree that we owe it to Fiona—I am glad that she is here to hear this—and to other families to get this right. I can reassure him that work is under way to examine what action is necessary to prevent further such tragedies. That comes alongside our intention to consult on the liberty protection safeguards this year. I will make sure that the hon. Member is fully updated on the work as it progresses across government. I will ask that he makes sure that Fiona and others are updated as well.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. As negotiations are ongoing, we remain committed to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 and supporting new innovative technologies, as he will be pleased to know. The EU accepts that there will need to be areas where we retain our own rules, and we will always prioritise British interests as we negotiate our SPS agreement.

I have been campaigning for a Lincoln dental school for some years. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, thanks to the hard work of, among others, Professor Juster, Professor Read and Susie MacPherson, Lincoln medical school is now in a position to take on its first cohort from 2027. Will the Prime Minister provide the necessary funding for this cohort of students to start to help improve the oral health of people right across Lincolnshire?

I am pleased to hear the news about the dental school in the hon. Member’s constituency. We have put in further funding for dentistry. We were left with dental deserts across many parts of the country, but we are fixing that problem.

As the Prime Minister has pointed out, today is World Cancer Day. As outlined in our cancer plan, early detection and diagnosis is vital. Will the Prime Minister agree to consider the campaign by my constituent Gemma Reeves, who is a nurse at the Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother hospital, to ensure that breast cancer screening is available for all women over the age of 40, and will he meet her to discuss how such a change would save lives?

I absolutely support that, and I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss it. Early diagnosis is so important for all cancers, and we must do everything we can to ensure that early diagnosis is the norm by default.

I recently met one of the bravest women I know. Elizabeth was 14 when she was raped in Rotherham. She is one of the survivors of the rape gangs—one of the biggest national scandals in our history. While her first rapist, Asghar Bostan, was convicted and sentenced, she was, shockingly, subsequently allegedly abused by police officers serving in South Yorkshire police. One of those officers remains on active service today. Elizabeth made complaints through Operation Linden, but none of them was followed up. She rightly feels betrayed and failed by the very institution designed to protect her. Will the Prime Minister meet Elizabeth, rape gang survivors and me to commit that those who committed and covered up these abhorrent offences are put behind bars, where they belong?

I am deeply concerned about the facts that the right hon. Lady has outlined. If she could give us all the details, I will make sure that there is a follow-up meeting in relation to her concerns.