Lord Mandelson

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

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.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alex Burghart]

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

[Dr Murrison]

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?

[Alex Burghart]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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.

[Dr Murrison]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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.

[Dr Murrison]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Dr Murrison]

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?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

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.

[Dr Murrison]

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?