Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Gurinder Singh Josan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

I want to address three aspects in my remarks: first, the appointment of Peter Mandelson in the first instance; secondly, the approach taken by the Prime Minister as details have emerged over the last few months; and finally, the vetting process overall.

The debate so far has been characterised by collective amnesia on the Opposition Benches. We have seen some amateur dramatic theatrics, and the leader of the Liberal Democrats has demonstrated why he is such a risk to trade and industry with one of our largest trading partners. We have seen the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who sits on the Opposition Benches, choosing to lecture Labour Members about traditions in the Labour party. We have even seen some of my hon. Friends, whose experience of No.10, I suspect, has been purely about attacking No.10 or in a disciplinary capacity, claiming to have real insight into the culture there.

At the core of the current debate is the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the USA. Clearly, Peter Mandelson’s background of resigning twice from a ministerial office has been a matter of public record, but while there are other allegations about his conduct, not all of them were in the public domain at the time. Many recent revelations have led to his dismissal from the post of ambassador, action in relation to his peerage, and referral to the police, which is an ongoing process.

It is clear to all that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed to the role. While that is the case, the apology offered by the Prime Minister on repeated occasions in this House and outside has been full, wholesome and without equivocation.

Most importantly, the Prime Minister has repeatedly and rightly apologised to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for making the appointment in the first instance.

[Mike Wood]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

No, I will not.

While the initial appointment has been, and I suspect will continue to be, a matter of debate, the Prime Minister’s apology cannot be faulted.

[Imran Hussain]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way for a friendly intervention?

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

In a bit.

I want to address the wider approach taken by the Prime Minister in this case and other allegations against senior figures in this Administration, which I think is relevant.

[Bradley Thomas]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a second.

This Prime Minister promised a change in the approach to dealing with such matters. An approach that embraces transparency and is robust and timely is essential in maintaining public trust and confidence in the Government, in politicians and in this House.

[Imran Hussain]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He knows full well that this is not any personal vendetta against No. 10. He, of all people, knows the culture that exists in No. 10 and the toxicity of that culture. The question that I want to ask him—and I ask it in all sincerity—is whether he really expects the British public to buy what he is saying.

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

I have a better understanding of the culture in No. 10 than my hon. Friend does. I absolutely expect that the British public understand that the apology put forward by the Prime Minister has been full and unequivocal and that he has not messed about on that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

I will take more interventions in a few minutes.

On every occasion when an allegation has been levelled, whether in relation to Peter Mandelson or the previous Deputy Prime Minister, the approach of this Prime Minister and this Government has been in marked contrast to the approach taken by successive Tory Prime Ministers. We saw then a real refusal to accept that allegations were valid. We saw a refusal to address allegations in a timely fashion by referring them for investigation. Investigations were dragged out and there was a refusal to accept their findings.

In the case of Peter Mandelson, as information about the allegations has have been forthcoming, the Prime Minister has come to the Dispatch Box again and again. He sacked Peter Mandelson, and he has taken action again and again. That action has been robust and speedy, and the ongoing commitment to the Humble Address will ensure full transparency. That is in marked contrast to how the previous Government handled such matters.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about full transparency, and the ministerial code says that Ministers must be “open and transparent”. When the Prime Minister came to the House in February and said that the reason he sacked Mandelson was because he had lied to him about his relationship with Epstein, was that a full and transparent account of the reasons why Mandelson should not have had the job?

[Gurinder Singh Josan]

The Prime Minister presented the House with the information that he had at that time. Further questions about that should be directed to the Prime Minister. Fundamentally, the Government will not take any lessons from the Conservatives, who, over a number of years, presided over the trampling of trust and confidence in politicians and in this House into the ground again and again.

While I suspect that this House has not seen the last of the Peter Mandelson issue, I am hopeful that the change in approach towards allegations taken by this Prime Minister and this Government, moving towards transparency, timeliness and robust action, is one that will continue in the future. There is a lesson there for all of us.

Finally, I want to address the vetting process. I believe strongly that the vetting process followed by Government and Departments should be robust and should have the confidence of those subject to vetting, as well as the Departments employing them, their colleagues and the wider public. Clearly, to maintain that confidence requires a high degree of anonymity and confidence in that process.

It is also the case that any information thrown up as part of that vetting process is acted on appropriately by Government or by Departments in a timely fashion, but there is a fundamental dilemma in expecting the Government, or the Prime Minister in this case, to act on information that was never made available to Government or Ministers. That is the fundamental issue here. We need to ensure that the vetting system is fit for purpose, and a balance between confidentiality and response at the appropriate level is essential. The current balance is clearly not correct, and I welcome the steps being taken by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister in that regard.

Let me end by saying that this whole episode has exposed issues of judgment and process, and I suspect that the debate will long continue in relation to both. There is much to commend in the judgment taken by the Administration as information became available. Whatever the merits of the case, and whatever people feel about what is being discussed, I hope that some of those approaches in relation to transparency, timeliness and robust action will continue.