Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)]

The business for the week commencing 9 February will include:

Monday 9 February—General debate on the UK-India free trade agreement, followed by debate on a motion on increasing survival rates of brain tumours. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 10 February—Debate on motions to approve the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026 and the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026, followed by debate on motions to approve the draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2026 and the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2026.

Wednesday 11 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.

Thursday 12 February—General debate on LGBT+ History Month, followed by debate on a motion on mobile connectivity in rural areas. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House of Commons will rise for the February recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 12 February and return on Monday 23 February.

The provisional business for the week commencing 23 February includes:

Monday 23 February—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill, followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill.

Tuesday 24 February—Opposition day (18th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.

For the convenience of the House, the debates on estimates are expected to take place in the week commencing 2 March.

[Jesse Norman]

I do not think that this is a moment for normal business. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House and all Members, will join me in taking this moment to remember the victims of Jeffrey Epstein: the young women and girls who were systematically trafficked and abused by him and his associates over many years—both those who have come forward and those who have not felt able to do so.

Today, I will talk about Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House and colleagues across this Chamber feel the same way that I do. He and they will understand that this is a matter that far transcends party politics. Peter Mandelson, when Business Secretary, advised Jeffrey Epstein that Jamie Dimon, the CEO of J. P. Morgan, should “mildly threaten” the Chancellor at the time—his colleague, Alistair Darling—over the planned tax on bankers’ bonuses, as Jamie Dimon, still the chief executive of J. P. Morgan, duly did.

Mandelson forwarded market-sensitive information to Epstein that related to the 2009 sale of up to £20 billion in state assets, describing the internal Downing Street memo—internal, I stress—as an

“Interesting note that’s gone to the PM.”

Mandelson gave Epstein advance notice of the EU’s 2010 €500 billion bail-out the night before the official announcement, and he warned him in advance of the departure of Gordon Brown from No. 10 Downing Street —a further highly market-sensitive piece of information.

In 2008, Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in Florida under a state plea bargain on two sample felony counts: solicitation of prostitution from a minor and procurement of a minor for prostitution. The Prime Minister was specifically asked at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday whether he knew that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after the conviction. He said:

“when we drafted Humble Addresses in opposition, we always included an exemption for national security”.—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 259.]

Unfortunately, that is plainly untrue—it must be inadvertent. When the Labour party presented its Humble Address for impact assessments on Brexit to be released on 1 November 2017, that address did not mention national security at all. The second name on that motion was that of the Prime Minister. I hope the Leader of the House will encourage the Prime Minister to correct the record when he next appears at the Dispatch Box.

The Prime Minister also said yesterday:

“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.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 259.]

Let us think about that for a moment. The Prime Minister is saying that if only he had known about the depth and the extent of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein as it continued after 2008, he would have rejected the appointment. It was not enough that he knew Mandelson had a continuing relationship with this convicted paedophile and sex trafficker. He knew it—indeed, the fact that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s mansion had been reported to him by public sources, and he ignored it. Not only that, but the Prime Minister had the public information further confirmed and reinforced by the security vetting that was done after the appointment but before Mandelson had signed his contract of employment. That was a further chance for the Prime Minister to reject the appointment, and he ignored that too.

The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), asked the Prime Minister yesterday:

“can he tell us whether he thought at all about Epstein’s victims?”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 262.]

Those victims are the many dozens—perhaps hundreds—of girls and young women who were trafficked and abused by and through Jeffrey Epstein. It is clear that the Prime Minister did not consider them at all, or he could not have possibly taken the decision he did. So why did he choose Mandelson? Why did he take that decision? He did so because Morgan McSweeney told him to. McSweeney was Mandelson’s protégé, and McSweeney was paying back his long-time mentor and political sponsor for all those good works with his appointment.

This whole episode has done incredible damage to the already fragile nature of trust in politics. Every Labour Prime Minister since 1997 has given Peter Mandelson a senior job and been betrayed by him. The present Prime Minister will be seen to have had his own reputation destroyed by this scandal. But let us be clear: every Member of this House and our entire political system have been harmed by it and will continue to be until effective measures are taken to clean it up.

I ask two questions. Can the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the documents to be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee will not be redacted? In order to reassure the House, can he ask the Cabinet Secretary to review the appointment procedure undertaken in this case—both the public due diligence and the developed vetting process—and set out in writing why those failed so badly in this case and how they will be improved?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I thank the shadow Leader of the House for the way he has addressed these matters this morning. He is fully entitled to do so. In fact, I would go so far as to say that he is right to do so, because I agree that there is palpable anger, outrage and a degree of sadness about the way these events have unfolded.

I would normally, on such occasions, start by running through the series of events, but today I am going to reverse that order and first deal directly with the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House, because they are so important. Then, with your forgiveness and leave, Mr Speaker, I will make some remarks about other matters.

The shadow Leader of the House raises some very important points. He talked about yesterday’s Humble Address and the remarks of the Prime Minister. I think there is an assumption with Humble Addresses—I have drafted a few in my time—that national security matters will be exempted from them, but as I think we found out yesterday, there is a degree of confusion about that. I am grateful that as the debate continued yesterday, we did listen to the mood of the House and ensured that what was put before the House at the end of the day reflected what the House was seeking. So if it was imperfect at the beginning—I gently suggest that the right hon. Gentleman’s motion was also, to some extent, imperfect —we got to the right place. In terrible circumstances, that was a good moment for the House, ensuring that that is what was put before the House.

The shadow Leader of the House asks about the actions of the Prime Minister, and that will, of course, be part of the outcome of investigations and inquiries. We must ensure not simply that a robust inquiry is in place, but that we trust people to get on with it. He mentioned the documents that go to the ISC. I expect the ISC to get whatever it asks for, and in the form in which it asks for it. It may have been missed yesterday, but the National Security Act 2023 states that the ISC can ask for documents. I hope we do not get to this situation, but if the ISC does not get those documents, it ends up in court with a judge deciding on such matters. I would not recommend anybody trying to over-redact or leave out documents, because I think we are in a situation where everything, however painful, needs to be out.

It is important to put on record the actions that have been taken since these further matters came to light. Let me say—I should also have said this at the beginning—that I absolutely agree with the shadow Leader of the House not just on how awful this is, but that the victims of Epstein should always be at the forefront in our deliberations. They are brave, and we must ensure that we rise to the challenge of ensuring that they get some kind of justice at the end of it all.

The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that Peter Mandelson should not be a Member of the House of Lords, and although Mandelson has himself retired, we will be bringing forward legislation to strip him of his title—as ever with these matters, it is slightly more difficult to achieve that than it is for me to say it from the Dispatch Box. The Prime Minister has agreed with the King that the former Lord Mandelson should be removed from the Privy Council. The matter has been referred to the Metropolitan police. They have requested that they be allowed to get on with the job, and I absolutely endorse that.

Over this week we have had a statement from the Dispatch Box on these matters, then Prime Minister’s questions, which was rightly dominated by them, and yesterday we had the not extraordinary but still unusual circumstances of six hours of debate on them, giving Members the opportunity to have their say. We have listened, and we are listening to the House, and indeed to the country more widely, to ensure that we get to the right place in what is an absolute tragedy, not just for the victims but also for the political process itself. I hope that I have made that position clear.

Let me return briefly to some other points. I pay tribute to Lord Triesman, a former general secretary of the Labour party. As the former chairman of the Football Association, he campaigned against racism in sport and was a vocal supporter of women’s football. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to his friends and family.

I pay tribute to Lord Wallace, who also died this week. He was ever-present in Scottish politics for almost four decades, a leading architect of devolution and a tireless advocate for his constituency of Orkney and Shetland for over 30 years. We remember him with fondness and send condolences to his friends and family.

I also pay tribute to the campaigner Nathaniel Dye, who has died after a long battle with cancer. I met Nathaniel Dye. He was a brave and courageous campaigner whose life ended too soon. His family and friends should be proud, even in their grief, that his campaign made a real difference to the future wellbeing of others. Yesterday was National Cancer Day and we published our national cancer plan. It owes much to healthcare professionals, but it also owes much to ordinary people—extraordinary people, actually—like Nathaniel Dye who told their stories, and the stories of their friends and families. The plan outlines how thousands of people will receive more timely treatment, and the Minister for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), will make a statement shortly.

We have announced the roll-out of 500 new free breakfast clubs in schools across the country, which will mean a free breakfast club now operates in 1,250 schools and is available for 300,000 children.

Today is Time to Talk Day, which is an opportunity to break through the stigma that often comes with having conversations about mental health experiences. That comes ahead of Children’s Mental Health Week, which is next week. Children’s mental health is crucial for fostering positive life outcomes, and I know that there will be lots of activity in constituencies across the country to raise awareness.

Finally, hon. Members will note with interest that Parliament’s restoration and renewal costed proposals report will be published by the House this afternoon. The Palace of Westminster is part of a UNESCO world heritage site, and it is also a symbol of our democracy. It is in much need of significant work to maintain the upkeep of the building, and to make it safe for people who work in and visit the building. I hope that hon. Members will take time to read the detailed report and, in due course, we will be bringing forward the matter for debate and decision, not just by this House but by the other place too.