Lord Mandelson

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a point that is typically made in court. When the defendant is found to be lying, one addresses the jury and says, “He has lied about that, members of the jury. How can you trust him to tell the truth about the charge that he is facing?” In public office, serial liars should not be tolerated.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Perhaps I can rephrase the question asked by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). How was the Prime Minister to know that the famous serial liar Peter Mandelson would lie to him?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

If the Prime Minister was here, I am sure that he would be able to answer that question. What has always amazed me—and a lot of others, I am sure—is how Mandelson has risen again from the ashes after each disgrace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti]

I find it disgusting. What Epstein did was absolutely disgusting in its own right: he trafficked, he was a child sex offender, and in many ways he was a coward in how he left this world. I wish he had faced the full force of the law. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) talked about enablers and the role that powerful men played. I say to Labour Members that they are at a crossroads. If they really care about Epstein’s victims, they need to ask how this was allowed to happen.

By the way, it is not just about Mandelson and Epstein. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) made a point about Bill Gates. I watched the video of Melinda Gates yesterday, and I was talking to my wife about how horrible it must have been to see the emails and what he was up to. My hon. Friend also mentioned Richard Branson. The reality is that there is clearly a culture of men who thought they were above the law, and the DOJ is grappling with that issue over in America.

We have talked about some very important things in today’s debate, for which I commend hon. Members, but we have to be honest about the fact that this matter came on to our shores. It is possible that there are victims whom we still do not know about, and that criminal investigations still need to happen. I need an assurance from Ministers that if that comes to the fore, the Government will act quickly to make sure that criminal investigations are started. The public require that to help us on the journey towards rebuilding trust, and we should not underestimate the need for that.

[Joe Robertson]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful, wide-ranging speech, and I am sure that more details will come out. Does it not come down to the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US despite knowing that he had had a long-standing friendship with a prolific convicted paedophile, to the extent that he had stayed in that paedophile’s house while he was serving prison time? That in itself is sickening and shocking. Not only should people not be defending Peter Mandelson—and they are not—but nobody should be defending the Prime Minister for his sickening conduct.

[Saqib Bhatti]

The Prime Minister has brought his judgment into question. The Opposition have been saying that for a couple of years—Oppositions do that—but on this issue, he has marched everyone up the hill and Ministers have gone out to defend him on this issue time and again. His position really is now untenable. I guarantee Labour Members that when they go home and talk to their constituents, they will have to answer questions about why the Prime Minister allowed this to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

At the start of this afternoon, I sat through Prime Minister’s questions and did not really have any intention of taking part in this Opposition day debate. I quite often take part in what we call Oppo day debates, but I had other commitments in the diary. [Interruption.] This is not a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was asked to speak, was I not? Officials are looking at me rather perplexed.

I had no intention of speaking in this debate. I sat through Prime Minister’s questions and listened to the Leader of the Opposition asking the Prime Minister direct questions. With each question that went by, it became clear that there were many questions that were not being answered and that the Government were attempting simply to sweep this issue to the side, and to deflect to other matters around the periphery.

First, let me come to the Humble Address. I have not been in this place as long as some of my vintage colleagues—I say that in a very kind way—but I have a few scars to bear from my time as Chief Whip. [Interruption.] I never lost a vote, mind. The reason that I make that point is that I, like others in this place, know the significance of a Humble Address. A Humble Address is not used on a normal Opposition day debate. It is not used regularly and it is not used lightly. It is used to indicate that this is a very serious matter that we have brought to this House today. Initially, there were to be two debates, but because of the demand from those on the Opposition Benches to have the issue debated and discussed, the usual channels agreed to allow the debate to take all afternoon. Most scrutiny has come from Conservative Members, but I pay tribute to those on the Government Benches who have had the decency to explain to their Front-Bench team how they feel about this important matter.

We heard earlier about the issue of national security. In opposition, when the Prime Minister was shadow Brexit Secretary back in 2018—I remember those days well—he proposed three separate Humble Addresses, and none of them included exemptions for national security. There was a suggestion that we got this wrong, but that is just not the case at all.

I am pleased that the Government have listened, yet again, to their Back Benchers and brought forward a manuscript amendment, but were it not for Members on both the Opposition and Government Benches pushing them to do so, I do not think we would be in this position now.

[Joe Robertson]

Is it not shocking that the Prime Minister not only appointed Peter Mandelson knowing his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, but today has sought to deflect, cover up and table an amendment so as not to have to answer questions that he must now answer?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is just so right, and I will come to that point a little later.

The core of this debate is the fact that we want answers. There are huge questions about the judgment of the Prime Minister and his appointment of Mandelson. Members from both sides of the House have talked a lot about the victims, and it is right that they have, but if we are to stand up for the victims and for the people who put us here—we should never forget that we were sent to this place—we need to ask the questions, and we deserve the answers. Opposition Members will continue to keep asking those questions, because that is what the public and the victims deserve. They deserve transparency and accountability.

Earlier I made an intervention about the vetting process. I am not an expert on this at all, but it does seem strange to me that, arguably, Peter Mandelson did not appear to have been fully vetted—instead going through some strange checking process involving one piece of paper.