PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address - 16 March 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Before we come to the urgent question on the Government’s response to the Humble Address, I would like to remind the House that Peter Mandelson is the subject of an ongoing police investigation. However, no charges have been brought. The sub judice resolution, therefore, does not currently apply. In that context, it is up to Ministers how they reply, but the House’s rules do not prevent them from answering fully. None the less, I know that the House would not wish to do anything that risked prejudicing the investigation, so I gently say to Members that it would be helpful to exercise a degree of restraint in referencing the specific matters under investigation.

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s compliance with the Humble Address of 4 February 2026 relating to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States of America.

I updated the House last Wednesday on the Government’s response to the Humble Address motion of 4 February, after the first tranche of documents were laid in both Houses in response to that motion. The Government have been clear that they are committed to publishing all documents relevant to the Humble Address, and that further material will be published in due course as officials work through its full scope.

The first tranche, as the title of the document made clear, represented,

“Part of a Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons dated 4 February 2026”.

It responded directly to a number of specific elements contained in that motion, namely papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s ambassador and the discussions that subsequently led to his dismissal. As the Government have said previously, there are specific documents that we would like to disclose but which the Metropolitan police has asked us not to in order to avoid prejudicing the ongoing criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson. The Government have agreed to that request. We will publish those documents in the future once the Metropolitan police has confirmed that it will no longer prejudice its investigation.

As a consequence of that, and as I set out to the House on 11 March, the Government have therefore taken the extraordinary step, as agreed with Mr Speaker, of briefing the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), on terms agreed by the Metropolitan police to ensure that there is as much transparency to the House as possible.

As the House understands, the Government must carefully assess the risk of prejudicing UK national security or international relations posed by the release of any official documents. Again, this process is subject to parliamentary oversight. Any such material will be and is in the process of being referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. I thank the Committee for its assistance and can confirm that this process was also followed regarding the first tranche of material published last week. Outside of this arrangement, the important and well-established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgments are ultimately for the Government has not changed.

We are continuing the disclosure process for other documents across Government within the scope of the address. Given the breadth of the motion agreed by the House and the large number of materials and Departments involved, this process will take time and necessarily requires careful consideration. Where relevant documents are held, they are being prepared for release through an established process, including the appropriate checks relating to national security, international relations, legal privilege and the protection of personal data.

The Government have acknowledged that the documents published reveal that the appointment process fell short of what is required. As previously set out, the independent adviser looked last week at the process and concluded that he saw no grounds for the investigation that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), has requested, but as the Prime Minister set out this morning, the inherited process itself was not strong enough. That is why the Prime Minister has already strengthened the process and is committed to strengthening it further in the future. This forms part of wider changes that the Government are bringing forward to improve the system, including a review by the Ethics and Integrity Commission relating to financial disclosures, transparency around lobbying, and the business appointment rules, alongside a review of the national security vetting system.

As I have said, and I know Members across the House will agree, Jeffrey Epstein was a disgusting individual, and Peter Mandelson’s decision to put their relationship before his victims and the vulnerable was reprehensible. That is why there is cross-party consensus across the House for transparency and accountability and why the Government are committed to publishing all material relevant to the Humble Address. I will continue to keep the House updated as a matter of priority, as I have done to date, and I commend this statement to the House.

Since last Wednesday, it has become increasingly clear that either the Government did not follow due process in their appointment of Peter Mandelson or that they have not disclosed all the relevant documents. In different terms, either the Prime Minister’s assurances that full due process was followed were misleading, or the Government have not complied with the Humble Address. Either would be a contempt of Parliament.

Last Wednesday, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said:

“All the documents that are available in relation to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal are published…today, subject to those that have been held back by the Metropolitan police.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 371.]

But many, many documents are missing. I have detailed 56 documents in a letter that I sent him. To give a few examples, there is no prime ministerial readout on the advice that the Prime Minister received. This is a breach of protocol. A prime ministerial decision, even if made orally, should be formally recorded. Where is that record? It starts to stink of the sofa government that we had under Tony Blair.

There are no minutes of any meeting at which this appointment was discussed, by anyone, at any time. Were there really no meetings about this? Most suspiciously of all, we have no material from the Prime Minister, from his chief of staff or from Peter Mandelson: no box returns, no emails, no forms, no WhatsApps—nothing. It is as though their fingerprints have been forensically removed.

To narrow this down, on 11 November 2024 the Cabinet Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted to make a political appointment, the civil service would

“develop a plan for…the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest”.

That was the process, so let me ask the Chief Secretary two very specific questions. First, did Peter Mandelson receive security clearance, and if so, on what date? There was no such document in the release. Secondly, did Peter Mandelson make a full declaration of his interests? Again, there was no such document in the release.

I remind the Chief Secretary that noting the existence of a document does not prejudice an investigation in any way. The Government have already told us about one document that they are holding back at the request of the Met police; they are more than able to tell us about others. It is time for the Government to level with us. What is missing, and why?

As I informed the House last week, the documents that pertain to tranche 1 are the documents the Government own, and they have been published in line with the Humble Address. The shadow Minister asks about the process followed for the appointment of Peter Mandelson. As the Prime Minister and the Government have said, the process that was followed was the process that was inherited; however, this has shown that that process is not sufficient, which is why it is being strengthened.

The shadow Minister made reference to questions about WhatsApps and other messages. I can confirm that those types of documents will be subject to a further tranche being published in due course. He also asked me about security clearance for Peter Mandelson. I refer him to the answer I gave last week in respect of that question, and to further comments from the Foreign Office.

As an alumnus of Manchester Metropolitan University, I noticed that it has stripped Peter Mandelson of all the honours that it gave to him while he was chancellor of that institution between 2016 and 2024. Can the Chief Secretary confirm that any contacts with Government and the Department for Education during that period are not currently subject to this investigation?

I can confirm that any documents that are within the scope of the Humble Address and refer to communications between Ministers and others and Peter Mandelson are part of the disclosure process currently being undertaken by the Government.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

We may debate whether the Prime Minister’s appointment of Peter Mandelson showed a weirdly rushed, catastrophic lack of judgment or just a stunning level of disengaged naivety. Either way, the British public are rightly wondering whether decency in public office is just too much to ask. I reassure them on behalf of the Liberal Democrats that no, it is not too much to ask.

As well as confirming that Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with a convicted sexual predator was known, the files also revealed that he was given top-level briefings before his vetting was finished—a vetting process that clearly failed by any measure. Trust in politics is already stretched thin, and I am sure that everyone in this House wants to see it restored. If the worst fears of this sorry saga are found to be true, that trust will take another body blow, boosting only the populists on the left and the right.

I therefore ask the Minister, if the Prime Minister really wants to rebuild trust and ensure that the proper procedures are always followed, will he commit to taking up Lib Dem calls to make the ministerial code binding in law, and will he refer himself to the independent ethics adviser to determine whether, in the course of this long, sorry saga, he has breached the code or not?

Who?

The Prime Minister.

I thank the hon. Member for his questions; I just wanted to clarify whether he felt that I should refer myself to the independent adviser.

I refer the hon. Member to the letter from the independent adviser, which came out on Friday of last week and concluded that there were no grounds for an investigation into the Prime Minister’s conduct, because the process that the Government inherited for these types of appointments had been followed appropriately. The process itself, as the Prime Minister said again this morning, is clearly not sufficient, which is why it needs to be changed for the future.

Peter Mandelson’s appointment has done serious damage to public trust, but the deeper issue, as we are finding out, is the culture that made this possible. When a small clique is able to wield this much influence, confidence in public appointments is of course badly undermined. What structural changes are being made to ensure that factionalism and cronyism can never again override the national interest?

I refer my hon. Friend to the part of my statement in relation to the work of the Ethics and Integrity Commission and the work that the Prime Minister has set it in reviewing the rules around transparency and lobbying, business accounting rules and other such related processes.

Last week, the Government withheld the questions the Prime Minister put to Peter Mandelson and his responses, apparently at the request of the Metropolitan police. This is perhaps the most important documentation we could see and, as Madam Deputy Speaker confirmed, “Erskine May” confirms that:

“In criminal matters, proceedings are active when a charge has been brought”.

That is the balance between justice and democracy. Given that Mr Mandelson has not been charged, this matter does not fall under the sub judice rule, and he might not be charged for a year or more, if ever. There appears to be no other statutory bar to the Government releasing information: the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 does not apply; the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply; and the Contempt of Court Act 1981 does not apply because section 5 of that Act excludes public debate of matters of public interest. Given the lack of statutory bars preventing the Government from acting, will the right hon. Gentleman release that documentation?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and Members across the House would not want to do anything to prejudice a criminal investigation that might finally result in justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. As I have said to the House repeatedly, where the Metropolitan police has asked for documents to be held back, we have consented to that. However, recognising the points the right hon. Gentleman makes, we have agreed a process with the Chair of the relevant Select Committee—a Member on the right hon. Gentleman’s side of the House—so that the Chair is able to see those documents and so that any accusations of any cover-up by the Government can be shown to be inaccurate.

The Chief Secretary has just mentioned that the process was not strong enough, but I have to say that that was a massive understatement. The due diligence checklist published last week screamed reputational risks, yet its red flags were ignored and dismissed, exposing a deeply embedded culture of deception. Mandelson’s appointment has dragged our party into the gutter, and the apparent collusion between key figures in Labour Together and the Prime Minister’s top team signals their clear complicity in this failure of judgment. Will the Government now take responsibility and support a full independent inquiry into Labour Together and those in the UK Prime Minister’s office who enabled this?

Where the Government have the ability to take action to ensure transparency and accountability on this matter, they are making sure that they do so. For organisations that are outside of Government, it is for those organisations to consider such requests.

It is not much good blaming the process when it is as plain as a pikestaff that the Government knew that Peter Mandelson’s appointment was, to put it mildly, extremely dodgy. If there were any conversations held, over the telephone or face to face, or any private emails sent from people’s personal email addresses, will they be made available to this House?

The documents that fall within the scope of the Humble Address will be made available to the House in the way that I have set out.

It would be very useful to know what proportion of the documents we have already been able to set our eyes on, but also what proportion is being held back by the police, so that we can make a calculation of how much more is to come. But it all sounds too casual, not least when my right hon. Friend talks about WhatsApp messages. We need to ensure that there is proper due process across Government, not least when we are talking about the business associations of Peter Mandelson with the client of his own PR company, Global Counsel. How much more work is there to come that this House will see with regard to what was known about Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Palantir?

It is a reflection of the depth and extent of the work being undertaken by Government to comply with the Humble Address that it is taking some time to be able to process the documents. We moved at pace to publish the first tranche of documents last week and, as I have said to the House, we are going to publish the second tranche as soon as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) referred to very specific documents—meeting notes and decision notes—that have not been disclosed. May I point out that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister himself must not mislead the House? So, do these documents actually exist? Are there decision notes and meeting notes that have been withheld, or do they not exist?

Documents owned by the Government that are within the scope of the Humble Address have been published, as I have set out.

Peter Mandelson’s behaviour was disgraceful, and his continued relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is difficult to comprehend. It is an insult to the victims and survivors of Epstein’s horrific crimes. Clearly, the Government are putting in place standards and tightening their appointments and vetting process, but could the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister tell the House what work Baroness Anderson will undertake in the Cabinet Office and when we can expect a further update on her progress?

I know that Baroness Anderson in the other place will be listening with great intent to my hon. Friend’s question. I was pleased to get the Prime Minister’s support to appoint Baroness Anderson as an additional Minister in the Cabinet Office to take on this additional work, given the seriousness with which we take the need for modernisation and reform. I look forward to the proposals that she will bring forward in due course.

It has been revealed that Peter Mandelson was given top-level briefings before his vetting was finalised. Who did that, and who will hold those people to account? Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister write to me if he is not able to answer that question now?

As the Prime Minister has already said, the length of time it takes between an ambassador’s appointment and agreement from the host country, and for certain vetting to take place, meant that in the past there had been an established process to allow for ambassadors to start work and to be announced before the vetting was completed. We are reviewing that process to make sure that there are not such gaps in the future.

Aside from the response to the Humble Address, 90 Members from parties across the House are calling for an independent statutory inquiry into the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and British public figures and institutions, including whether due diligence was undertaken in the case of any appointments to public roles. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s position to support such calls and establish an inquiry? If not, can he confirm that there is no influence from Labour Together on such a position?

My hon. Friend will know that there are legal proceedings under way, with actions by the Metropolitan police and others. The Government agree that there should be justice for victims, and anyone who has any insight, knowledge or experience of Jeffrey Epstein, his associates or the events involved should come forward and share it.

Did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff communicate with Mandelson via a private email address?

Any communications that are subject to the Humble Address will be published in the second tranche.

The Prime Minister rightly called for the removal of peerages from disgraced peers, so could the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister tell the House when we might expect further updates on the proposed legislation?

I think there is cross-party agreement that we should introduce legislation that removes life peerages from those in the other place who bring the House into disrepute or suffer a criminal penalty for their behaviour. That is why the Government are working to introduce legislation that not only deals with Peter Mandelson but is available as a sanction for others who behave in that way in the future. We are getting towards the end of this Session, but we are committed to bringing forward that legislation. We look forward to presenting it shortly.

No matter how many Ministers the Government sent out over the weekend to try to spin their way out of this crisis, the story remains unchanged. The Prime Minister chose to ignore the fact that Mandelson remained friends with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein; he chose to ignore Mandelson’s own scandal-laden political history; and he even chose to ignore the advice of the security services, which questioned Mandelson’s suitability for the job. Given the Prime Minister’s appalling lack of judgment, can the Minister understand why so many people across these islands believe that he simply cannot be trusted to remain in office?

On the second half of the hon. Member’s question, the public are looking to the Prime Minister and seeing the important leadership role that he is playing in the world, given the events in the middle east, Ukraine and elsewhere. That is important for domestic conditions for families struggling with living standards and worried about the future. On the first part of the question, the Prime Minister has apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson, which he regrets—it was a mistake. If he had had information on the depth and extent of the relationship, which became available after the publication of documents at the point of the appointment, he would not have appointed him in the first place.

Gloucester residents rightly expect that nobody be above the law, so will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister update the House on what steps the Department is taking to ensure that the Metropolitan police have all the support they need for their investigation?

Of course, the Government take the Humble Address with the utmost seriousness, and respect the sovereignty of Parliament in exercising its own powers, but my hon. Friend is right to remind the House that justice for victims will be delivered only as a consequence of criminal investigation and criminal prosecution, not by motions of this House. It is important that none of us seeks to undermine those criminal investigations so that victims may, for once, see justice come in their direction.

Of course, nobody would expect the Government to contravene the indications of the Metropolitan police by publishing documents, but most people would expect that the first step for somebody applying for such an important job—the most senior diplomatic post—is to submit a declaration of interests. It is unclear whether that declaration of interests was submitted, or whether it actually exists, because we have not seen it yet. It is difficult to understand how such a basic first-principles requirement would not be disclosed in the first tranche of documents. Why is that?

The right hon. Gentleman invites me to itemise the documents that have been held back by the Metropolitan police. I am advised that I am not at liberty to do that from the Dispatch Box, but I say again to him and the House that all documents that the Government have and are able to publish at this time have been published.

Much of the discussion has been about tightening up the process. It has become increasingly clear from the documents already in the public domain that this is as much to do with the personnel delegated to make this political judgment. Will my right hon. Friend explain how tightening up the process might ensure that such personnel are not in a position to make political judgments of this kind in future?

I refer my hon. Friend to the content of my statement, and the very wide-ranging review by the Ethics and Integrity Commission into the process not just for appointments but for vetting, as well as into transparency on lobbying, declarations of interests and business appointment rules. The Government hope that the work of the commission will allow us to have a process that avoids these problems in future.

For four months, I asked the Government what severance payments Mandelson received. According to the permanent secretary of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, I received no reply due to an “error”. Now, we have the failure to release 56 documents. Mandelson should have been dismissed for gross misconduct, yet the British people had to fork out for a payout. Even though Treasury rules say that severance payments cannot be used

“to avoid…unwelcome publicity or reputational damage”,

Foreign Office advice to the Prime Minister said:

“Given the reputational impact for HMG, a modest settlement as proposed is the recommended course of action.”

Does the Minister maintain that no rules were broken with Mandelson’s payoff?

I repeat for the House that, in line with the Humble Address, all documents that the Government have were published. The hon. Lady’s reference to 56 documents is a reference to 56 documents that the Opposition like to think exist, as opposed to those that have been published by the Government. On severance payments, the documents were published in a bundle last week, and they speak for themselves.

For five years before my election, I led services for adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. It is a cause that means a lot to me, and I know it is a cause that means a lot to the Prime Minister too.

We on the Labour Benches are furious with Peter Mandelson; he hoodwinked left, right and centre, requiring the Prime Minister to ring him up in the embassy in the middle of the night to fire him. The Prime Minister has said that if he had known then what is now known, he would not have appointed him.

There is a criminal investigation under way that we cannot cut across, and there are critical pieces of information that have not yet been disclosed, including the follow-up questions and Peter Mandelson’s answers to them. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister outline when we might hear about the next steps and the release of those questions and answers? I think we should be reserving judgment until we see the totality of the evidence; as politicians, we are here to be led by the evidence.

As I have said from the Dispatch Box, there are documents that the Government would have wished to have been able to publish as part of the response to the Humble Address, but the Metropolitan police asked us not to do so. It is right that we have honoured that request, given the ongoing criminal investigation. As soon as the Metropolitan police have informed us that they have discharged their duties, we will publish those documents for the House.

The documents that were published in the tranche last week in relation to the Humble Address show the process that was followed, which was the proper process at the time.

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his answers so far. Will he outline that this Government will do everything they possibly can to support the police investigation? Does he agree that whether we are Members of this place or the other place, or former princes, it is hugely important for public trust that nobody is above the law? The victims of these vile crimes deserve nothing less.

I think all Members across the House would recognise the primacy of the criminal investigations that are under way as the best route for justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. With that in mind, the Government have committed to comply with the Humble Address and their transparency obligations to Parliament while holding back the documents that the Metropolitan police have asked us to hold back.

The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and other Conservative Members have asked last week and this week about the declaration of interests. Either it exists and the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister does not want to say so, or it does not exist and he does not want to say so. Out of respect for this House, the public and the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, will he confirm now whether or not it exists?

The hon. Lady should listen carefully to the answer I give. Given our obligations, I am not able to itemise all documents, as I have already set out from the Dispatch Box. What I can say to her, as I have said to her right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), is that all documents that the Government have and are able to publish at this time have been published. The only documents that have not been published are those being held either by the Metropolitan police or by agreement through the Intelligence and Security Committee—which is not relevant to the tranche 1 documents that were published last week.

Mandelson wanted more than half a million pounds to walk away from his job. This Government gave him £75,000; that went to someone who the Prime Minister said was clearly dishonest and lied. Will the Government be seeking to recover that public money—taxpayers’ money?

The Government did not wish to give £1 to Peter Mandelson, but, as the documents from tranche 1 revealed last week, the decision was based on advice that the quickest possible route to removing him from civil service employment was to provide a severance payment on the terms provided, and that that sum was lower than the anticipated cost of legal fees associated with an employment tribunal dispute.

Two weeks ago, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister gave me two pithy answers, so I ask him to do the same this week. First, did Peter Mandelson receive top-secret so-called STRAP security clearance? Secondly—we will try this question once again—did Peter Mandelson submit a declaration of interests? I want a yes or no to both those questions.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer.

Does the Minister believe that a declaration of interests form should have been submitted for a role as significant as this?

I agree that all process should be followed, yes.

The problem with these sorts of scandals is that as time moves on, more and more people are tarnished by them. Last week, when the papers revealed that Mandelson received £75,000, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister whether the Government were worried about what he might say at an employment tribunal. He said,

“That was not the rationale. The documents will speak for themselves.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 367.]

Of course, the documents do speak for themselves. They say that part of the business case for the payout—which the Minister was aware of, because it was sent to him—was that

“Given the reputational impact for HMG, a modest settlement as proposed is the recommended course of action”.

They also say that

“the individual has a high profile which could give rise to reputational damage to the FCDO and HMG were a court or tribunal claim to be pursued”,

which is exactly what I suggested based on what was in the papers, but which the Minister denied was part of the reasoning. Does he want to apologise for inadvertently misleading the House, and does he agree that those papers show that the Government broke Treasury rules on how such payments should be made?

I think I said to the House last week, for the sake of clarity, that while I recognise that correspondence in the bundle mentions the business case being referred to me for my approval, that was never sent and was never received, so I was not privy to it as the hon. Gentleman suggests. On the basis of the severance payment, as I have said to the House, it was, based on advice, deemed to be the quickest way to get Peter Mandelson off civil service employment, and cheaper than maybe incurring the legal fees of a dispute at the employment tribunal.

I welcome the first tranche of documents being released. One of those documents—the due diligence checklist, “11-12-2024 Advice to the Prime Minister”—has an entire section about Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, yet on 4 February at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that

“If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near Government.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 258.]

What additional information did the Prime Minister get to come to that conclusion?

I think the hon. Member is referring to the initial release of documents by Bloomberg, which exposed the extent and depth of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein—which was not made clear to the Prime Minister prior to that appointment —and was subsequently confirmed by the US Department of Justice documents.

In our country—and I fully support the Government’s national inquiry into grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation —the Epstein scandal exposes a global sex ring, with many hundreds if not thousands of under-age girls and women being trafficked for sex for the sake of political, financial and global influence. It is right that the Government are publishing details about the appointment of Peter Mandelson, but will the Minister confirm what other steps the Government are taking to go through all the millions of pieces of evidence and documentation that are being released by the US Department of Justice, to find and prosecute every single British person who took part in the exploitation of women and girls?

The hon. Member is right to remind the House that while we have important questions about process, documentation and the appointment and dismissal of civil servants, above and beyond all of that was the most horrifying set of crimes that are imaginable to any of us in this House. The fact that they were able to happen in the way they did reminds us that we have much further to go to deal with male violence against women and exploitation of women by the powerful and rich. That is why the Government are committed to our strategy on violence against women and girls, and it is why we will of course comply with any investigation where we can be of assistance, to ensure that justice is being delivered for those victims.

What level of security clearance was Peter Mandelson granted prior to his appointment as ambassador to the United States?

I can confirm to the House my previous answer about the process for his appointment, agrément, and the security vetting that then took place. For particular details, I will need to refer the hon. Member to the Foreign Office.

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for making himself available on every occasion that the House asks him to come along and answer questions. As each week passes, the attention on this matter is not diverted but intensified, and with each seeming redirection, the British public become even more dejected and less confident in the Government structures that are in place to hold staff and Ministers to the highest possible standard. Will the Chief Secretary outline what additional steps can be put in place to assure Members of this House and the British public that the current job application route has been completely shut down, and that political persuasion will cease to be the top qualifying criterion in Government employment shortlists?

As I think I have said to the House before, the vast majority of people who apply to public service do so to serve the public and are honourable people who acknowledge and live the Nolan principles in every day of their work. What the Peter Mandelson example has shown—there have been others in the past—is that for all the rules in place that serve the majority well, there are still too many opportunities for those who wish to get around the rules. That is why the work that the Ethics and Integrity Commission is now doing will be vital in trying to prevent that from happening again.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I apologise for not being able to give you notice of it. The ministerial code clearly states that Ministers must provide accurate information to this House. Under the duty of truthfulness, it states that Ministers are required to

“be as open as possible with Parliament”

and maintain high standards of accountability. That is not just in what they say, but what they fail to say. I know that you do not enforce the ministerial code, Madam Deputy Speaker, but would you expect a Minister who has misled the House by omission to return to the House to correct the record?

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. While the occupant of the Chair is not responsible for Ministers’ words, I would expect any Minister to return to the House to correct omission, although that is a matter for those on the Treasury Bench and not for the Chair.