Lord Mandelson

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

We are having this debate today solely because of the women and girls who found the courage to come forward and speak about the abuse they had endured over years at the hands of rich and powerful men. Without these women’s bravery in speaking up about their experiences at the hands of a paedophile sex trafficker and his friends, none of these shocking revelations would have come out. We owe these women justice, and we owe it to them to make changes to create a system that works.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Member is right: victims should be at the heart of this process. The allegations against someone who the Prime Minister and Ministers put full trust in are also absolutely shocking.

Jeffrey Epstein was a sick child predator and a sex offender. He visited Hillsborough castle on at least one occasion. Does the hon. Member agree that this House and the Government should have a full review of his activities while there, and an audit of his visitors during that time? The victims deserve answers.

[Lisa Smart]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of some of the individuals we are talking about today. We will be supporting the Leader of the Opposition’s motion to request the information that is sought. The Liberal Democrats would go further, looking to a public inquiry in order to get to the detail that the victims deserve.

The revelations about Peter Mandelson’s conduct raise profoundly serious questions about judgment, national security and accountability. The leaked emails suggest that while serving as a Cabinet Minister, he shared sensitive Government information, sharing details about the 2008 financial crisis, market-sensitive bail-out measures and potential asset sales. These allegations point to potential misconduct in public office, aimed at helping those involved to enrich themselves. They certainly warrant the police investigation that was announced yesterday, but also reveal catastrophic failures in the systems meant to protect our national interest.

The emails highlight a fundamental lack of accountability that exists within our current system. The Prime Minister has rightly called Peter Mandelson’s conduct a betrayal, and has submitted material to the police and requested draft legislation on removing peerages. These responses are necessary, but it has taken the Government far too long to get to this position. Mandelson was appointed ambassador to the United States by this Government and this Prime Minister even after his links to Epstein had been extensively reported by the Financial Times and “Channel 4 News”.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

In evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee after Mandelson had been withdrawn from Washington, the Cabinet Secretary said that a summary of the developed vetting and conflict of interest report was given to the Prime Minister prior to Mandelson’s appointment, and the Prime Minister appeared to confirm that at the Dispatch Box earlier. The Government and the Prime Minister have repeatedly said that it was the extent of the relationship that somehow altered the appropriateness of his appointment. What message does my hon. Friend think it sends to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, and to the many victims of rape, paedophilia, sexual assault or sex trafficking, that anyone with a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein should be deemed appropriate to be our representative in Washington?

[Lisa Smart]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I am not sure what extent of friendship with a known, convicted sex trafficker is appropriate for somebody who is to be put in our most senior diplomatic position. In 2019, Channel 4’s “Dispatches” interviewed a witness who saw Epstein, while he was in prison for child sex trafficking, take a phone call from Mandelson. Mandelson asked for a favour—to meet the then chief executive officer of J.P. Morgan. All this information was in the public domain.

[Dr Evans]

The hon. Lady’s point is exactly right: this information was in the public domain, often in the US. One of the questions that the Government have not answered is whether the US was asked if there were any concerns. This relationship was public—we knew that it existed—so was the US asked for any information, or about any concerns it had? I have not heard the Government explain that point; has the hon. Lady?

[Lisa Smart]

I am sure that I have been listening as intently as the hon. Gentleman. There are so many questions that it is right for the Government to answer, and we believe that a public inquiry, after any police investigation has concluded, is the way to get to the bottom of them. There are questions swirling around about which advisers said what, when, but the decision to hire Mandelson was ultimately the Prime Minister’s, and he must be held responsible for that.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The Minister said that Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes were “unforgivable”. Does my hon. Friend think that the Prime Minister appointing said known paedophile was forgivable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I think my hon. Friend is referring to the appointment of the friend of a known paedophile, rather than the appointment of a paedophile.

[Mike Martin]

Thank you very much.

[Lisa Smart]

That is an important clarification to make. Rightly, there are questions surrounding the judgment displayed by the Prime Minister in appointing Peter Mandelson to the position of UK ambassador to the US. Those questions are wholly valid, as are the questions being asked about current Cabinet Ministers who also chose to maintain friendships with Mandelson—there are rumours of him popping in and out of some offices at will. I must say, I noted the facial expressions of some Government Front Benchers during Prime Minister’s questions earlier.

Of course, many questions were raised about Mandelson before his appointment. Questions were raised about him during the 2009 expenses scandal. He was forced to resign from Cabinet twice for unethical behaviour, and we understand that the security services raised serious concerns about his appointment last year, yet he was still appointed to one of our most sensitive diplomatic positions. This is not a case of one unforeseen problem; it is a pattern of warning signs that were ignored. This Labour Government promised to break with Conservative chaos, but instead we see the same failures—inadequate checks, reactive crisis management, and an inability to prevent obvious problems. You do not restore public trust with heartfelt apologies after things go wrong; you do it by having proper systems that stop scandals before they happen. Labour has failed to maintain public confidence, and it must do better.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Obviously, people here want to get to the bottom of this, in terms of the accountability of the Prime Minister and other elements in No. 10, and of course they want to get to the bottom of what Peter Mandelson has done. However, the public understand that this is not just about a number of rotten apples in the system—it is systemic. It is about those who have wealth, power and access, and how they treat young girls and women, and us, the public. They take us for mugs. Does the hon. Lady believe that this goes wider than just a few bad apples? It is systemic, and that is what needs to be addressed. That is what the public want.

[Lisa Smart]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I wonder whether he has looked at my notes and read about the systemic changes that we Liberal Democrats would like. I agree with him that this goes far beyond a few bad apples. There are systemic failures in our country that we need to seize this opportunity to address.

Successive Administrations have failed to address fundamental weaknesses in our system of government that further threaten public confidence. I will do as the Father of the House urges and focus on how we make progress. We must make reforms to the ministerial code, as it is clearly not functioning. The code is a set of rules and principles, and acts as guidance for Ministers, rather than having a legal basis, so Ministers who breach it face no legal consequences. When breaches of the ministerial code are investigated, even by independent advisers, the Prime Minister can decide whether to listen or not, so “accountability” becomes almost meaningless. Will the Minister consider using this troubling episode in our national story as a catalyst for much-needed change and enshrine the ministerial code in law?

The Liberal Democrats believe that if we are to go some way towards restoring vital public trust in our democracy, we need to make fundamental reforms to this House and the other place. Members of the Government clearly share that sentiment, as we have heard various Ministers on the airwaves over the past couple of days saying that the Government recognise the urgent need to reform the Lords, and may bring proposals forward at pace. Can the Minister lay out further details of the Government’s plans to legislate, especially given growing concern about public trust in our democratic institutions and the integrity of this Parliament?

The Government hold a substantial majority in this House, and they can push through legislation rapidly, as we saw only last week with the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill. The same process could be used to make urgent changes to the other place. Ministers need to set out the legal mechanisms available for suspending or removing a peer, the timetable for any planned legislation, the progress of cross-party discussions that have been mentioned in the press, and how confidence in the upper Chamber will be restored. If there is no clarification, uncertainty risks further eroding public confidence in Parliament and our democratic institutions.

On the motion and the Government amendment, we Liberal Democrats firmly believe that transparency is vital. The very least that the Government can do is release the information requested, so we will support the motion, but we would go further. We do not even know the full extent of the British establishment’s involvement in Epstein’s appalling crimes, or how many British girls and young women were trafficked by him. We call for a full public inquiry, with the power to compel witnesses, both to get justice for the victims and to protect our national security.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

On the information available, does my hon. Friend share my discomfort about the fact that the situation became clear to us only after this mass release of information by the Department of Justice in the United States? While I understand the Government’s reluctance to release information that may well harm international affairs, that does not seem to be a concern for the US Government.

[Lisa Smart]

The best disinfectant is often daylight. I am strongly in favour of transparency; I welcome it, including about the information that is being requested today.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

The hon. Lady’s point about the wider establishment is important. Individuals like Sir Richard Branson clearly offered to help Epstein launder his identity and reputation by suggesting public relations advice on how he might recover from his prosecution. We have gentlemen like Bill Gates, whose wife has bravely spoken out, saying that one of the reasons she left him was his links to Epstein. How do we make sure that such men, who continue to have extreme power, face some sort of justice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

The hon. Lady is entirely right to talk about the very well-known men—and it is men, wealthy, powerful, greedy men—who should be held accountable for their actions. We should all welcome the transparency that is being sought today. We should have in mind the victims and survivors, and the need to prevent young girls and women from becoming victims and survivors of similar crimes. We should do all we can to prevent that, and should take the responsibility that we have seriously.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) mentioned in Prime Minister’s questions, as did the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) at the Dispatch Box in this debate, that the Polish Government think that Epstein might have been spying for Putin. The British public and Epstein’s victims deserve to know whether a UK Cabinet Minister was leaking secrets to not only a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, but a Russian agent.

We Liberal Democrats recognise the vital importance of safeguarding national security, and we genuinely welcome the openness that the Minister displays about looking at using the ISC to get to the bottom of some of this. However, there are already safeguards to protect national security. Those include the National Security Act 2023, which restricts the disclosure of information where that would harm the safety or interests of the UK. By tabling their amendment, which uses international relations as a reason to keep secret the information that they have, the Government are trying to wriggle out of their obligation to tell the truth, and we will not support it.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The transparency point is really important. Peter Mandelson was a Labour politician and this is a Labour Government. It may be that Peter Mandelson was an isolated bad apple, and that no one knew anything about what he was doing until this document release last week, but the public will wonder, and they will question. If a Labour Government cover up things by being anything less than fully transparent, the public will wonder who they are covering up for, and why.

[Lisa Smart]

A series of Administrations have not been as open as they could be, and have made poor choices about the behaviour of some of their Members, which has ended up in scandal and disgrace. I completely agree, if the hon. Lady is making the point that public trust in our institutions and our Government is vital; we must all take that seriously. There is a sorry legacy of recent Governments who behaved less than impeccably in a number of ways. We strongly support using this whole sorry episode as a catalyst to bring about much-needed change.

[Dr Murrison]

The Prime Minister has said that it is all okay, because the Cabinet Secretary will command this review. Does the hon. Lady agree that while the Cabinet Secretary is a person of impeccable repute, he cannot be objective, because he has been involved in this matter? It is almost unfair to put this on him. What mechanism can the hon. Lady devise that will deal with that, other than giving the great bulk of this information, because international relations will cover the great bulk of it, to the ISC?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

The right hon. Gentleman has clearly been reading Liberal Democrat press releases, because we believe that a public inquiry would be a far more effective way of getting to the bottom of this matter. I am delighted that he made that point.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Member is making some excellent points. Does she agree that all the inquiry systems that have been discussed so far are influenced or participated in by people who have been within the golden circle of Peter Mandelson? Do we not need something novel and different, such as an independent, judge-led or judiciary-led inquiry that examines the whole thing in the round, similar perhaps to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war?

[Lisa Smart]

I am always delighted to get agreement from across the political spectrum, and I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman: an independent, judge-led inquiry would be the right way to go.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

On the shortcomings of what the Prime Minister proposed from the Dispatch Box earlier, the Cabinet Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee back in November:

“The only information which was not already in the public domain at the time is a reference to official records which have since been disclosed”.

We have obviously learned this week that was not the case, so the Cabinet Secretary is plainly not the right person to lead this Government investigation. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Lisa Smart]

My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well. I believe that an inquiry in public, which could take evidence in camera, when appropriate for reasons of national security, would be the right way forward. I encourage the Minister to consider where we go from here.

Transparency must be prioritised over the potential embarrassment that any of these documents could cause. Surely Government Members must see that. The intentionally broad wording of the Government amendment would permit the Government to keep any correspondence hidden that they think might embarrass them or our allies—that means Trump and his cronies—or that might paint the Prime Minister somehow as weak. That is surely a relevant factor when considering international relations. It must not be allowed to do so, and we will be voting against the pretty shameless Government amendment.

There are rumours that Peter Mandelson is still receiving a salary, or payments from the UK Government, potentially including his ambassador’s salary severance pay and/or a pension from his time as a Minister. I would be grateful if, when winding up the debate, the Minister could confirm whether any of that is the case.

[Alicia Kearns]

Will the hon. Lady give way one more time?

[Lisa Smart]

I will give way one last time.

[Alicia Kearns]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary on 5 December, asking when Peter Mandelson’s pay had stopped, how much the severance pay was, and whether taxpayers have had to foot the bill for it. Although that was well over two months ago, I have received no response. How can we have any confidence that this investigation will be carried out properly when the Cabinet Secretary will not even answer basic questions about how Mandelson was paid and how much it cost us all?

[Lisa Smart]

I strongly agree with the hon. Lady. Transparency is what the public deserve, and it is what we in the House demand.

This whole sorry tale is about more than the failures, greed and corruption of one man, or even whole swathes of rich, powerful men who conspired to abuse their wealth and power over many years. It is about judgment, and also about a system that has long been not fit for purpose, and an establishment that wants to keep things just the way they are because that suits their needs. We should use this shocking situation to bring about the changes that our country needs, that trust in politics demands, and that those brave women who spoke out deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

The vetting procedure, as described by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, seemed so insubstantial. My hon. Friend is right: we have to do much better. I am recruiting a community engagement officer, and it struck me that we exercised more rigour in checking the background of that person, although I accept that I may not have understood the procedure that was described.

It is right that we have focused on Mandelson’s links with Epstein, but if Mandelson had not been mentioned in the data that was released at the weekend, perhaps we would have been speaking about Andrew Windsor and Sarah Ferguson today. They are, perhaps, the winners in that regard.

Earlier, I was guilty of saying that the arguments that the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) presented showed that he had misread the room, but he was right in one respect. He was right to say that Mandelson was a traitor—and I hope that he meant not just a traitor to the United Kingdom, but a traitor to the survivors of Epstein’s sexual abuse—and, in fact, survivors of sexual abuse everywhere.

I think that the residents of Edinburgh South West, and everyone else, expect us to work together on this, and to reach consensus, and hopefully we can. I am still not sure whether the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and the Greens are on board, but I think we are moving much closer to one another. [Interruption.] My apologies. It seemed that they wanted to back the original Humble Address, rather than agreeing to the involvement of the ISC in the process; that was my understanding.

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to clarify. In my speech, I said explicitly, from the Lib Dem Front Bench, that I welcomed the Minister’s openness to the ISC being part of this process.

[Dr Arthur]

I am grateful for the correction. Perhaps I was not listening quite as carefully as I should have, so I really do thank the hon. Lady.

I end by thanking our Front Benchers for listening to the arguments of Members from right across the Chamber, for showing a bit of leadership, and for hopefully bringing us together with some consensus.