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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The Minister does not know who in the Labour party signed off on Lord Alli’s pass to No. 10. It is an important question. Please could he find out and write to me and tell me who?

[Darren Jones]

I will certainly do my best.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that matter, which is of real concern for the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and myself. Protecting national security, including by defending against cyber-attacks, is absolutely our first duty, and she is absolutely right to highlight concerns about the attack on Jaguar Land Rover. We take this incredibly seriously. Indeed, my first visit as a Cabinet Office Minister was to the National Cyber Security Centre. I can tell her that the Home Office is progressing a new package of legislative measures to protect UK businesses from ransomware attacks, which, as she knows, are the most harmful cyber- crime facing the UK.

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

7. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of civil service recruitment.

[Mr Speaker]

Welcome, Minister.

[The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

This Government’s aim is to recruit the brightest and best talent into the civil service—brilliant people from across the UK with the skills to deliver the priorities of the British people. We have already taken steps to improve recruitment, with the first ever cross-Government standardised recruitment processes and benchmarks, to strengthen accountability and bring faster, higher-quality and more inclusive recruitment. Fast, fair, inclusive: that is our recruitment vision.

[Joe Robertson]

The Government are restricting applications to the civil service fast stream summer internship programme in favour of those kids who they deem to be from working-class backgrounds. What does the Minister have to say to the children of hard-working nurses, police officers and teachers who will now not get the same opportunities because of decisions made by this Government?

[Anna Turley]

The fast stream programme, of which I am proud to be a graduate, is the No. 1 graduate employee scheme in the country. We are proud that we have had over 70,000 applicants for just 754 appointments. We know that we have done very well in increasing diversity, with applications from ethnic minority candidates, women and people with disabilities, but we are falling short in applications from those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. I make no apologies about taking proactive decisions to ensure that people who do not necessarily have the same social capital or relationship strength as those from other higher social backgrounds can take internships. The number of working-class people in the civil service is three times smaller than the broader UK workforce, and we are taking action on that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

7. What progress he has made on publishing a tracking dashboard for the plan for change metrics.

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

14. What progress he has made on publishing a tracking dashboard for the plan for change metrics.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

17. What progress he has made on publishing a tracking dashboard for the plan for change metrics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat McFadden]

If the hon. Gentleman wants more facts about delivery, let me help him out right now. Last week we launched the biggest social and affordable housing programme in a generation, meeting a need that has been unmet for years in this country; we have extended free school meals to half a million more children; and this year, we will be putting 3,000 more neighbourhood police back on the beat. I am very happy to give the hon. Gentleman all the figures he wants.

[Joe Robertson]

Given that the Government’s plan for change tracking dashboard is still in development, can I ask the Minister to include a column or facility to track all the U-turns—or, as the Government may prefer to call it, “The Changes to the Plan for Change (Subject to Change)”? That way, the public can see where those U-turns have taken place, such as on winter fuel payments, the grooming gangs inquiry and welfare reform. It would also help Labour Back Benchers to keep up with the Government’s current position.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. When the Prime Minister announced the strategic defence review a few days ago, he was clear that the uplift that has been approved by the Government in defence spending is a matter not just of the Ministry of Defence budget, but of industrial policy and skills policy. For example, we have announced an extra £1.5 billion for munitions over the next five years, creating six new munitions factories and over 1,000 jobs. It is really important that these investments are of benefit to different parts of the country as we make the necessary investments to improve our defence and national security in response to a changing world.

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

I welcome the Minister’s words on wanting a more joined-up Government, but I have concerns that the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are not working well enough together both generally and specifically on cross-Solent transport to the Isle of Wight. Will he encourage better joint working between those Departments, both generally and specifically for that most important issue for my constituents where clearly Local Government and Transport need to work together to create regulation to improve passenger experience?

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Member makes a strong point. I spend every day encouraging Departments to work together, but he will have heard me say that departmental DNA is strong. He is right that if we want to achieve things, we must overcome departmental DNA sometimes and ensure that Departments work together to deliver good projects. That is exactly what we are trying to do.

UK-EU Summit

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[James MacCleary]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point.

What we have advocated for on all these areas is a new relationship with Europe, which would involve a new discussion around fishing. Unlike the Conservatives, who apparently cannot cope with the idea that we can actually move forward in the world and have a different arrangement, we acknowledge that we do not have to go back to what we had before.

The Liberal Democrats have a clear four-step road map to rebuild our European relationships. First, we must have a fundamental reset, rebuilding trust trashed by years of Conservative recklessness. I absolutely acknowledge the positive work Ministers have done in that regard. Secondly, we must rejoin crucial European agencies that directly benefit British people, such as Erasmus+, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency and Horizon Europe, which back in 2023 the Conservatives agreed to pay more than £2 billion a year to rejoin due to the enormous harm that leaving that programme had done to our critical research and innovation sector. To recognise the necessity of such programmes, only to demand in the motion that the Government rule out paying for access to other schemes that could benefit the UK, is the very height of hypocrisy.

Thirdly, we must negotiate practical arrangements to slash red tape, culminating in a UK-EU customs union by 2030 that would give British businesses the oxygen they so desperately need. Finally, as trust rebuilds, we must pursue single market membership, unlocking maximum prosperity for businesses and maximum opportunity for future generations.

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

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the common fisheries policy. Will he join us on the Conservative Benches and go one further by urging the Government not to give up any of the sovereign fishing rights that the UK currently benefits from by giving away fishing to France for other seen-to-be benefits from a wider deal? Can he be strong and urge the Government on fishing, like those on these Benches?

[James MacCleary]

I can be strong; I promise the House that I will never join those Benches—I can rule that out definitively. What we should not be doing, as the right-wing press have slightly hysterically speculated, is trading away fishing rights for a defence deal, for instance. That is something that Liberal Democrats have been very clear about, and that we continue to be clear about.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I could speak about so many aspects of the Brexit renegotiation that the Government are entering into—Conservative Members in particular have spoken a lot about those issues—but I wish to focus on fishing and farming.

It is always a worry when this Government go into bat in a negotiation, because when Labour negotiates, Britain invariably loses. The current agreement with the EU on fisheries should be a baseline, and preferably a springboard, so that if the Government negotiate, they improve on that deal. That was always the intention. What is a negotiation if we go into it with a mind to sell out and come away with a worse deal? That is what is on the mind of UK fishing communities right now. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) asked the Prime Minister only last week to rule out giving away sovereign British waters to the EU, he refused to do so. The Minister may intervene on me to give our fishing communities the reassurance that the Government will not sell out to the EU on our sovereign waters.

We know what the French want: to send their trawlers closer inshore to our fishing waters in order to catch fish from UK waters and take them back to the EU and sell them. We are already in a situation whereby Dutch trawlers—4,000 tonne vessels—travel up and down the English channel trawling the bottom of the ocean. They take a huge bycatch of fish, including bass, right in front of small British vessels—such as those fishing out of the Isle of Wight, where my constituency is—that have a set of rules restricting their bass catch. They have to watch the Dutch boats scrape those fish up by accident and take them home.

If the Government enter a negotiation, the current arrangement for fishermen must be a baseline. They must improve on the deal and absolutely rule out any concessions to the French and the EU on sovereignty over British territorial waters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I really cannot explain why Conservative colleagues in the Senedd voted against that budget. Not only are the Welsh Government delivering £600 million; they are also delivering a specific package on cancer care. The initial phase, which is going to focus on breast, skin, gynaecological, lower gastrointestinal and neurological cancers, will improve productivity and efficiency in how health boards deliver care. This includes sending people straight to tests without an out-patient appointment. Alongside this, the Welsh Government are implementing a wider range of service improvements, from reducing smoking and tackling obesity to HPV vaccination and diagnostic and generic strategies.

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

5. What discussions she has had with the Welsh Government on steps to support the Welsh tourism industry.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)]

Wales has a world-class tourism offer. I fully support the Welsh Government’s support for the tourism sector through Visit Wales and other initiatives. Last month, the UK Government announced a £15 million investment for Venue Cymru in Llandudno and the Newport transporter bridge. These are two key projects that will help to boost the tourism and culture sector in Wales.

[Joe Robertson]

The tourism and hospitality sector in the UK is one of the most heavily taxed in Europe. Will the Secretary of State press the Chancellor to reduce the tax burden in this area to help drive local economies that rely on tourism in Wales and in constituencies such as mine on the Isle of Wight?

[Jo Stevens]

I would gently remind the hon. Gentleman that his party in government put the highest tax burden in 70 years on the people and businesses of this country, leaving a £22 billion black hole that we have had to try to sort out.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Georgia Gould]

It is critical that Government property and Government assets support economic growth in constituencies, including that of my hon. Friend, and I would be delighted to meet her to discuss that further.

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

To great fanfare the Government cancelled the previous Government�s contract for ministerial travel by helicopter, describing �40 million as �grossly wasteful�. We now learn that the Government have signed their own contract for ministerial helicopter travel, but it is a secret contract�so secret that we do not know how much it will cost. Will the Minister confirm whether it will cost more or less than �40 million?

[Pat McFadden]

I think on this one I had better write to the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am restless for progress on the speed of payments, and I will do everything in my gift as a Minister to lay the regulations before this House speedily. IBCA is obviously operationally independent and—I was having this discussion yesterday in Newcastle—the test and learn approach that it uses, which starts with a representative sample of cases, will allow it to ramp up delivery. When I was in Newcastle yesterday I saw a group of public servants working efficiently in a compassionate way to deliver.

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

8. What steps he is taking to reduce the cost of ministerial travel.

[The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)]

Across all our work this Government are determined to deliver better value for money for taxpayers. That is why, shortly after we came to office, this Government scrapped the Conservative party’s VIP helicopter service, which was a grossly wasteful symbol of a Government who were totally out of touch with the problems facing the rest of the country. Under this Government, Ministers must ensure that they always make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements, which the Government publish on gov.uk.

[Joe Robertson]

The Minister refers to helicopter travel, and she has given her description of the previous Government. Does she not accept that the Government are using VIP helicopter travel, not through the Ministry of Defence budget but through the Cabinet Office budget? Does that not make this Government grossly hypocritical, and is that not a symbol of how out of touch they are with the British public?

[Ellie Reeves]

Under the last Government, the former Prime Minister would take helicopters for short journeys at huge waste to the taxpayer. The Prime Minister’s ministerial travel under this Government is always decided with consideration for the most efficient and best use of time and, crucially, in the interests of the taxpayer.