Lord Mandelson

Johanna Baxter Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

Let me start by putting on record my horror at the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, as so many hon. Members have done today. This man was a paedophile and a perpetrator of evil acts. The pain of the victims and their families is unimaginable. I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for her incredibly brave and powerful speech. My words cannot match hers, and I urge all colleagues who were not in the Chamber to take a look at that speech.

It is clear that the House is united in disdain for the actions of Lord Mandelson. It was always my intention to speak briefly this afternoon, and it was always my intention to talk about this as being an opportunity for the House to come together. It is unmistakeably the case that when we talk to our constituents, they often say, “Why don’t you talk to each other like human beings?”, “Why don’t you respect each other?”, “Why is this place so often a pantomime?” But that is not always the case, and today it absolutely has not been the case. We do respect each other. I have been here for 18 months, and I have the humility to say that I have much to learn about this place. I admire many people from all parts of the House. I will call out a few of them who have made speeches this afternoon: the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare); the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry); the former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who made an important intervention that I shall come to a little later; and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who made a number of interventions.

It is not just today that we have listened to each other. Indeed, we should listen to each other. Members who know me will know that I am a passionate pro-European. I define myself as a social democrat and an internationalist. Some will cheer, but others will not. One who probably would not—he is not in his place today—is the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). There is not a huge amount on which we agree, but whenever he speaks on international affairs, I do my utmost to listen to him because of his experience in this House. Another Member who I am very surprised not to see in his place today is the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

He is in Westminster Hall.

[Andrew Lewin]

The only thing that matches his number of interventions in Westminster Hall is his decency as a man and a parliamentarian.

The focus today has rightly been on Mandelson. There is unity in contempt for his actions: his scandalous and brazen leaking of Government information, and the way in which he undermined the Government and his colleagues seemingly at every turn. His actions will offend every British citizen, every public servant and every Member of this House. That is why decisive action was needed, and it is why this afternoon’s debate is so important.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s proposal to allow the Intelligence and Security Committee to determine which documents are to be released. I commend the courage not only of those who made that argument earlier today, not knowing whether they would be successful, but of the Government who accepted those recommendations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti]

We should all share anger about that, because it speaks to a rot that, as we are finding out, has infected our politics and Government—Labour Government—in this country for decades. I understand that people make mistakes, in all parts of the House, but this is of such gravity that it speaks to a corruption that we need to get to the heart of. What my right hon. Friend has just said is extremely important, because this is one issue involving corruption, but we cannot get away from the fact that Mandelson had a role at every echelon of the Labour party’s journey—whether it was new Labour before we came to power in 2010 or the “new new Labour” that is now in charge; whether it was helping in the selection of candidates, or—Members are shaking their heads. I am more than happy to take an intervention.

[Johanna Baxter]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, because I would not want any Member of this House to inadvertently besmirch any other Member through misleading information. I served on Labour’s national executive committee for 10 years before entering this place, and Peter Mandelson had no role whatsoever in the selection of Labour candidates during that time. I make that point so that Members are aware of exactly what they are talking about.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I am glad to say that I did not mention any single Member of the House, so I am happy that the hon. Lady has put that on that record, but I do not trust Mandelson—[Interruption.] I am responding to the hon. Lady’s intervention. I do not trust Mandelson following what he has done, and I do not know how far his reach was in this Government or in that party. I do not trust him because we know he had a very close relationship—

[Johanna Baxter]

indicated dissent.

[Saqib Bhatti]

The hon. Member can shake her head all she wants; we know that Mandelson had a close relationship with Morgan McSweeney, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. The Labour party has not even started to address that point about the chief of staff. I hope the hon. Lady is right, by the way, but if she is not and documents do come to the fore, I am sure we will come back to this House to scrutinise which Members he had a hand in appointing.