Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I agree that all process should be followed, yes.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

The problem with these sorts of scandals is that as time moves on, more and more people are tarnished by them. Last week, when the papers revealed that Mandelson received £75,000, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister whether the Government were worried about what he might say at an employment tribunal. He said,

“That was not the rationale. The documents will speak for themselves.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 367.]

Of course, the documents do speak for themselves. They say that part of the business case for the payout—which the Minister was aware of, because it was sent to him—was that

“Given the reputational impact for HMG, a modest settlement as proposed is the recommended course of action”.

They also say that

“the individual has a high profile which could give rise to reputational damage to the FCDO and HMG were a court or tribunal claim to be pursued”,

which is exactly what I suggested based on what was in the papers, but which the Minister denied was part of the reasoning. Does he want to apologise for inadvertently misleading the House, and does he agree that those papers show that the Government broke Treasury rules on how such payments should be made?

[Darren Jones]

I think I said to the House last week, for the sake of clarity, that while I recognise that correspondence in the bundle mentions the business case being referred to me for my approval, that was never sent and was never received, so I was not privy to it as the hon. Gentleman suggests. On the basis of the severance payment, as I have said to the House, it was, based on advice, deemed to be the quickest way to get Peter Mandelson off civil service employment, and cheaper than maybe incurring the legal fees of a dispute at the employment tribunal.