Lord Mandelson

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Of course, the thoughts of everyone in this House are with the victims and survivors of Epstein’s appalling, horrific abuse, but the motion we are discussing focuses on something very particular: not just what is known now or what has been revealed in the past few days—conduct for which Peter Mandelson needs to face the toughest consequences—but what was known at the time of his appointment to the hugely important role of this country’s ambassador to the United States of America.

In 2023, the Financial Times reported that:

“in June 2009, when he was the UK business secretary, Mandelson stayed at Epstein’s lavish townhouse in Manhattan, while the financier was in prison for soliciting prostitution from a minor.”

That was 18 months before the Prime Minister decided to appoint Peter Mandelson to the role. At Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister said that he knew before appointing Peter Mandelson that he had maintained a relationship with Epstein. People not just in this Chamber but outside it are asking how on earth, given what was known and what has been admitted was known, did Peter Mandelson end up being appointed by the Prime Minister as ambassador to the United States of America.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it appears that the Prime Minister turned a blind eye to what was already known about Peter Mandelson’s association with the appalling sex offender Jeffrey Epstein because, effectively, he wanted to cosy up to Donald Trump? Does he not agree that it looks very much like the wording of the Government’s amendment—

“except papers prejudicial to…international relations”

—effectively says that the Government do not want to release anything that might affect the Prime Minister’s ability to cosy up to Donald Trump? Does he therefore agree that the Government must withdraw their amendment to the motion? Furthermore, does he agree that we need to do more than just deal with this; we also need to address the lack of public trust in politics and in this House? To do so, we need to deal with things like political donations, the pollution of misinformation, and the urgent need for reform of the other place and, indeed, of electoral mechanisms in this Chamber?

[Richard Burgon]

I agree with the hon. Member. If the Government are foolish enough to push their amendment, which I do not think they will, I will of course vote against it because it would operate to stop us getting the full and complete truth about this matter. I will come on to some other points and make some progress, as I know that other colleagues want to speak.

The public are asking how on earth Peter Mandelson ended up being appointed by the Prime Minister to the role of ambassador to the United States of America, given what was known and what was in the public domain, and given that the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box today that he did know.

Something that must come into this—and it is not a distraction—is political culture. By that, I mean the political culture that has developed within the Labour party. That might seem tangential, but how have we ended up in a situation where a nasty factionalism has operated to such an extent that the Prime Minister and his advisers have promoted and protected Peter Mandelson when so many honest, decent Labour people around the country have been unreasonably punished and prevented from standing for office? We have all heard of Labour councillors who were not allowed to stand for council, perhaps because they had liked a tweet from a member of the Green party or some such. We all saw how Andy Burnham was prevented from even standing for Parliament, and that was pushed by the Prime Minister. Yet at the same time, Peter Mandelson was promoted.

Ways were found round other people standing for fairly minor positions, but a way was found by the Prime Minister and his advisers to push Peter Mandelson over the line and into the office of ambassador to the USA. The reason for that, or one of the reasons, is quite simple: a nasty political factionalism. The reason that Peter Mandelson is looked upon so favourably by the Prime Minister and the people around him is that he made his name kicking the left of the Labour party, and boasting about it. I believe that, at the very least, that clouded their judgment, and it meant that they could find ways around what was in the public domain—find excuses to push him over the line.

When this matter was discussed some months ago in the Chamber, I asked how Lord Mandelson could retain the Labour Whip, given what was known, while hon. Friends were suspended for voting to add the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap to the Government’s programme in the King’s Speech.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government are serious about their commitment to transparency, internal Labour party materials and communications of any shape or form that involve Peter Mandelson must be preserved, released and included in any upcoming or ongoing investigation?

[Richard Burgon]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s important point. I say for the record that she was treated terribly by the party, by people around the Prime Minister and by people in the party bureaucracy, while those same people found reasons to turn a blind eye to or make excuses for what was known about Peter Mandelson.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

Does the hon. Member agree that, at a time when trust across the UK is at a low, what the public—and victims and survivors—out there will see is the wagons being circled, no matter which party is involved? Trust is the real casualty today. Does the hon. Member agree that that is what is at stake?

[Richard Burgon]

I totally agree with the hon. Member’s powerful point. It is no wonder that trust in politicians is at an all-time low. This affair shines a light on the role of the rich and powerful, and the relationship between some at the top of politics and some of the richest and most powerful men in the world. Peter Mandelson has always had, I would say, an unhealthy fascination with the super-rich and the powerful. After all, it was he who said that he was

“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.

In this serious debate, we need full honesty. As I alluded to earlier, one of the main reasons that Peter Mandelson was let off the hook and eased into one of the most important offices that he could be given by the Prime Minister was his role in internal Labour party factional affairs—that is just completely wrong. Let me quote Peter Mandelson:

“I work every single day in some small way to bring forward the end of his tenure in office.”

He was referring, of course, to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) while he was leader of the Labour party, at a time when Lord Mandelson was a Labour party member. That is the reason Mandelson was let off the hook. People were so grateful for the job that he did again and again to kick the left of the Labour party that they—

[Mike Martin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Burgon]

I will give way shortly. I think the Prime Minister would be delighted if I gave way now, because I am coming to an important point.

The reward for the factional role that Mandelson boasted about and revelled in was a blind eye being turned, even though the Prime Minister knew about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The reality is that Peter Mandelson would not have made it on to a panel of Labour party local election candidates, or as a Labour party parliamentary candidate at a general election, yet because of his factional role and his relationship with the super-rich—which stinks, quite frankly—he was eased into the position of ambassador to the United States of America. That is the truth, whether or not people choose to admit it.

[Mike Martin]

This important debate deals with corruption on an international scale, and with women and girls who have been victimised over years. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to lift his eyes above factional Labour politics and to focus on the issues at hand?

[Richard Burgon]

The hon. Gentleman may not have understood the point that I am making—perhaps that is the Liberal position on these things; I do not know. What I am talking about is the fact that victims of sexual abuse were put second to factional politics. The point I am making is that this dirty, grubby internal factional behaviour overrode those considerations—so, in fact, I do not disagree with him. That is the point that I am making: the lives of survivors should have been put first. The risk that Peter Mandelson posed to national security, and his deep inappropriateness for the role of ambassador to the US, should have been put first. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me, but that is the very point that I am making.

The public deserve the truth—the full truth. They need to know who argued for Peter Mandelson despite what was known about his relationship with Epstein, who argued for him to be pushed over the line into the role of ambassador to the United States, who warned against it, and what role the advisers around the Prime Minister played. That is fundamentally important. We cannot have a situation that the public quite rightly view as totally unacceptable. We need to know exactly how this happened and nothing should prevent that, because the public are completely baffled and disgusted.

The point has been made that we need to clean up our politics. Of course, that means no jobs for the boys when they are deeply inappropriate and deeply unsuitable for them, and it means looking at the role of big money in politics. Mandelson was infatuated with the rich and powerful in the same way that he was infatuated with the factional politics within the Labour party. Those things resulted in his being appointed to the position of ambassador despite what was known.

A manuscript amendment may be tabled and it may satisfy Members on both sides of the House—I do not know—but no manuscript amendment will rub away this crisis. No manuscript amendment and nothing that can be said in this House will remove the fact that the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America, despite what was known at the time, is literally indefensible. It is really telling that not a single Member on either side of the House has tried to defend that today, although some have defended it previously.

I come back to the point that we cannot have appointments in this country suborned as a result of people’s friendships or the role that they have played in internal party factions. That puts the national interest at risk and it can put national security at risk. The Prime Minister said “country first, party second”. What we cannot have is faction first, country second. I think that that is what happened with the indefensible decision to appoint Peter Mandelson to this important role, despite the fact that it was in the public domain that he had continued his relations with Epstein while that man was in prison for soliciting child prostitution.