Lord Mandelson

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

I am glad that it is not my problem, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend is right: the appointment of this man was absolutely the Prime Minister’s responsibility. Today we are trying to dig into exactly what the Prime Minister knew, whether any information was kept from him, and, if so, who kept it from him.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

This is a serious issue, and my hon. Friend is dealing with it appropriately. He will have heard, as I did, the Prime Minister refer to the fact that the “extent of the relationship” between Mandelson and Epstein was “not known”. The common view among Members across the parties at the time was that any relationship should have precluded Peter Mandelson from the appointment to be His Majesty’s ambassador to Washington. Does my hon. Friend share that view?

[Alex Burghart]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point—one that is central to our considerations and to which I will return.

I have mentioned the conduct of Peter Mandelson while he was a member of the last Labour Government, and the Prime Minister’s judgment in appointing him, but I will also touch on Peter Mandelson’s conduct while he was our ambassador in Washington.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I was not accusing the hon. Member for South Suffolk of impugning the Cabinet Secretary; my point was that the process is official-led and decided on by Cabinet Office lawyers. On the broader point that the House is making, I can do no more than say I hear what Members are saying, and I will take that point away.

[Simon Hoare]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will give way once more to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, but I must make some progress.

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to the Minister—he knows that the House knows that he is an honourable gentleman in every sense of that term. The mood of the House is clear, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) has set out, as have others, the role of the ISC, and the expectation that it discharges these serious and sensitive matters on behalf of the House, and that the Government have confidence. During the course of the debate may I invite him to go back to No.10, take advice, and not press his amendment this afternoon? I think that would reflect the will of the House and allow people to start moving these issues forward. To press the amendment today would, I suggest, be a retrograde step for the Government and their reputation.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As I said to the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), I will take the first point away. I disagree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on the importance of the amendment, which I will come back to in moment. There are really important public policy issues that I want to deal with in that respect.

Let me return to the thrust of my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

No, it is given to those who are making the decisions—as I understand it. The due diligence is done by the Cabinet Office. It does due diligence on a number of candidates, and then the decision is made as to which candidate will be put forward. Then it is announced. Then the vetting is done by the Foreign Office, and that information is handed back. I believe that that is the process. I think it is important, for clarity, that people know the process, because if we are about to get a large amount of information, it is important to understand how it worked.

[Simon Hoare]

The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee is right in that respect. I will just quote from a letter from the Cabinet Secretary to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I chair:

“Due diligence is generally carried out by the appointing minister’s department (in this case it was carried out by the Cabinet Office on behalf of No 10) so is not usually shared with other departments, and was not in this case.”

That answers the question of whether the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was involved; this was purely the Cabinet Office and No. 10, so the right hon. Lady is right. I just thought that that quote might help her in her argument.

[Emily Thornberry]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Yes, I have read the letter—I am afraid I did not have it at my fingertips—but I think it is important to put all this information before the House.

The next question is, what does “vetting” mean? I appreciate that there are other processes that we cannot go into here, and it would not be appropriate to do so, but I hope it will be of help to the House to share another answer from the Foreign Affairs Committee session. In question 269, I said:

“The foundation of it seems to be that they have a form to fill in, you take it in good faith that they are filling that in correctly, and then you check what it is that they have said, so if they have omitted anything, no one is looking outside what is on the form.”

Sir Oliver Robbins then said:

“That is broadly correct, yes.”

That is vetting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop). I will return in a moment to a point that he was just making.

I have the great privilege of being the father of three wonderful teenage daughters. Any parent or relative will feel their stomach turn and churn at the thought of vulnerable young women being trafficked and used as playthings for the sexual gratification of warped and twisted minds who thought they were above the law, to whom the rules did not apply, and who thought they could get away with it because of who they were.

I suppose the surprise as it relates to Peter Mandelson is that we are surprised. He was a man who seemed magnetised to money like a moth to a flame, and who had caused considerable and significant embarrassment and discomfort to previous leaders of his party. The current Prime Minister decided that, in some way or another, it was only the extent of the relationship that should be the determining factor, whereas the existence of the relationship at all should have precluded Peter Mandelson from an appointment to be our ambassador in Washington.

I want to pick up on a point raised by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean, and to which I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) was also referring. My conscience—I do not say this particularly smugly—is a bit clearer than my hon. Friend’s, if she is referring to the same vote, because there was a vote in this place. Those on the Treasury Bench need to remember this, because there are certain votes and motions in Parliament that become a Thing, with a capital T. They become an event. They set the scene that makes the atmosphere for the coming months and weeks of a Government. I think that this issue, and how the Treasury Bench responds later, is one such Thing.

Owen Paterson was and is a friend of mine, as well as a former parliamentary colleague. We were asked to vote for something which effectively would have got him off a very painful hook. I, along with 12 other Conservative MPs, against a lot of whipping, voted against the then Government amendment to effectively, de facto, exonerate him. It was the most difficult vote I ever cast, as he was a friend both political and personal, but it was a vote that I have never regretted, because it was the right thing to do. When all the party allegiances, the to-ing and fro-ing and the whipping and everything else is over, at the end of the day—I hope this does not sound too folksy, Mr Speaker—we all need to be able to look in the mirror, and at our families, our friends and our constituents, and say, “I always tried to do the right thing. I may not always have done so, but I always tried.”

I think the right thing for the Government to do is to withdraw their amendment. The mood of the House is incredibly clear. We heard wise advice from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), a former Attorney General and a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee; I do not think anyone could refer to him as a partial politician in this place. His integrity speaks for itself—as does that of the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds).

Anybody with a partial hearing of political interpretation will have gleaned the mood of the House: while respecting national security and other issues, which is a perfectly legitimate concern of the Government, this House vests in the Intelligence and Security Committee, to be discharged by senior Members of this House and the other place—Privy Counsellors all—the duties that those of us who are not Privy Counsellors or on that Committee cannot do for potential security reasons. We vest our faith and trust in that Committee, and it has never leaked. The Government can therefore follow that path in good faith and with trust. I hope that a manuscript amendment will be both forthcoming and accepted by you, Mr Speaker.

The hon. Member for Forest of Dean mentioned party politicking on this issue, and I am afraid I disagree with him on that; I do not think there has been any. I agree far more with my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith). Take away the party tags, the labels and the rosettes, and this is something that, for the vast majority of our fellow citizens, speaks to the operation of the state, the effectiveness of this place and the reliance our fellow citizens can put upon us in this place to do the right thing in difficult times, even when it is difficult to do so. Members on the Government Benches should talk to their Whips, use the usual channels and ask the Government to withdraw their amendment.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, does he agree that the amendment as drawn would, in effect, just throw a cloak over the very issues that many right hon. and hon. Members of this House want to see dealt with, and that the way to resolve those sensitive issues is simply to engage the Intelligence and Security Committee? Is that not the best way forward?

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Why else would we have an Intelligence and Security Committee with that remit? It is not as if we are retrospectively trying to establish a Committee of the House to do a specific job. It exists to do this sort of job, among other things. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench have listened.

On Monday, in response to my question on his statement, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the House that it would be much better to deal with the removal of Lord Mandelson’s title via the procedures and Standing Orders of the House of Lords than by legislation. He also told the House—in complete and utter sincerity at the time, I am sure—that it would require a complex hybrid Bill, which was not an analysis I shared. My understanding is that a simple Bill to amend section 1(2) of the Life Peerages Act 1958 to apply a cessation date to the honour of a life peerage would be all that was required. We have passed important legislation for Northern Ireland and other issues in a day’s sitting before when the mood of the House was clear.

I think the Prime Minister indicated today at Prime Minister’s questions that he had tasked his team—his officials—with drafting legislation. There is an appetite for urgency in this place, and allowing this issue to suppurate and drip will not be the answer. I ask the Minister in his summing up—or, if he wishes to intervene on me now—to give us a timetable as to when this House will see the Bill and to confirm that Government time will be found to take it through in a single day. That would be very helpful.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

There are many questions on the behaviour of Mandelson that are unanswered and that need to be answered, but I welcome that the Government have promised to remove his peerage. That is right. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that a Bill should also come before this House to remove Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of succession?

[Simon Hoare]

I think, Mr Speaker, that we usually prefer for matters relating to those sorts of things not to be dealt with on the Floor of the House.

[Mr Speaker]

To help the House, let me say that because this now relates to a person who is not a member of the royal family, the situation is completely different.

[Simon Hoare]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hospital pass has just gone through the shredder. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, in all candour: yes. The likelihood of Mr Windsor ever putting a crown on his head is so remote as to be unimaginable, but for clarity and probity, I agree with him. I do, however, think we should deal with the matter in hand today.

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has written to Sir Chris Wormald, the Cabinet Secretary, asking him to appear before us. This follows a letter we wrote last October, to which we received a reply on the 30th of that month. The way of vetting a political appointment to be an ambassador was woefully inadequate. I welcome the fact that No. 10 has put in place new procedures, but that is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. It is either naivety or, worse, some form of complicity that the legitimate and obvious questions that should have arisen for any political appointee, but particularly Peter Mandelson, were not asked. I think it is extraordinary that the views of the Foreign Secretary were not invited on this appointment. I also find it very strange that vetting is undertaken only after the announcement of an appointment—that is a most bizarre way of dealing with things. I am pleased that the Government have realised that things need to change.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is right to look at the process, but I do not think that it provides any cover for the Prime Minister’s decision. If the story in the New Statesman today is true, the Prime Minister was directly sent a report that

“clearly stated that Mandelson’s relationship with the paedophile continued after his conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution. It contained links to photographs of Mandelson with the paedophile, and drew particular attention to evidence that Mandelson had stayed at Epstein’s apartment while he was in prison.”

Candour has been talked about a lot today. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should hear from the Minister today whether that report in the New Statesman is true and whether the Prime Minister received that report? That takes away any idea of the extent of the relationship—the extent of the relationship is as laid out in that report.

[Simon Hoare]

My right hon. Friend is right, but if this motion is passed unamended this afternoon, all those papers will be available either to this place or to the ISC, and then we will know.

We are all aware of these sorts of things. Somebody will set a hare running at some point and we will say that we think this, that and the other. I have heard, for example, that Peter Mandelson was at Labour party headquarters each and every day in the run-up to the general election and that he was intimately involved with the selection of candidates—I can see a couple of Labour Members nodding as if to say, “Yes, I knew exactly what was going to happen”—and that in essence, the ambassadorial position was a thank you present: “Thank you for getting us back into No. 10—here’s your final gift from the public purse. Go and be our ambassador to Washington.”

In the general scheme of things, that is perfectly fine, but I think we deserve to see the paperwork that shows the paper trail. It is not unusual for political appointments to be made in that way, but that is in the abstract. In this specific case, it is unconscionable, and it is surprising given the fact that the Prime Minister flaunts, with some degree of credibility, his previous role as a senior lawyer and his ability to tell right from wrong. And by God, did we not hear that when he was Leader of the Opposition? Whenever a Conservative committed even a minor misdemeanour—if they put something plastic in the paper recycling box—by God it was a hanging offence: “They should all be taken outside, hanged, drawn and quartered” and so on.

Being in government is obviously different, but the reason the appointment of Mandelson befuddles everybody is that the argument that the Prime Minister has deployed is that the full extent of the relationship and friendship with Epstein was not known. The fact that there was any relationship with Epstein post conviction should have precluded Mandelson’s appointment. Why? Because an ambassador is not a representative of the Government. The position is His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States of America, so it brings in the impartiality of the Crown as well. There are therefore serious questions to ask about the operation of No. 10 and about how the Prime Minister exercises his judgment.

[Alicia Kearns]

There does seem to be amnesia about this. When Mandelson was made ambassador, it was well known that he continued the relationship with the convicted paedophile post his conviction, and there were simpering emails already in the public domain saying things like, “Oh darling one, all should be forgiven.” The suggestion that it only recently became unacceptable for him to be ambassador is wrong. If Labour Members want to suggest that it was not well known, let me tell them that colleagues like me raised it in this Chamber on the day that he was appointed, and I was greeted with jeers and boos from the Labour Benches. No one said, “Absolutely, maybe there are concerns”. Should that amnesia perhaps be reconsidered?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is not me who will say when it is 4 o’clock, but I would gently say that this is Opposition day and the Opposition may want to extend the time available for this debate. I am very bothered that not many people will get in given the rate that we are going at. I leave it to Members to take care of time.

[Simon Hoare]

Conscious of that, Mr Speaker, let me say that I agree with my hon. Friend, and then conclude with two asks of the Government. First, will they confirm when a Bill will be introduced and that it will be passed speedily in both Houses before the Easter recess; and, secondly, although it is not my job to speak on behalf of those on the Labour Back Benches, I ask the Government to read the Chamber. Allowing the Government Chief Whip and others to press this amendment would, as the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) has said, send such a bad message to our constituents and to victims—not just of Epstein and Mandelson but to the wider victim community—that when push comes to shove, officialdom somehow or another circles the wagons and finds a vehicle to filter and to protect.

As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said, the best thing that we can have is transparency. The best disinfectant is sunlight. We need as much sunlight on these papers as possible, and we can start to make some progress this afternoon. Do not press the amendment and publish the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

There is an old proverb—it might be of Russian extraction, which would be fitting enough—that says, “Tell me who your friend is, and I will tell you who you are.” Doesn’t that sum up Peter Mandelson? The friend of the child abuser. The friend of Jeffrey Epstein. He is the living personification of that proverb. He is a man apparently so corrupted in his own morals that he thinks what he did was okay, and is perhaps corrupted financially. That corruption, of course, is the product of his intoxication as a freeloader on the rich and the powerful.

Peter Mandelson has brought us to a very sorry pass indeed, but the abiding two words that will live from today relate to the Prime Minister, and they are: he knew. Those words will long outlive this debate. He knew, when he appointed Peter Mandelson, that he had that ongoing relationship with Epstein. He told us today that he did not know the depth of the relationship. Sorry, but it is not about depth. It is not a question of scale. It is a question of whether there was a relationship, and the very fact that there was should have been enough for any Prime Minister. That calls into question fundamentally the judgment of our Prime Minister. Our Prime Minister has to make fine judgments on the world stage. Day and daily, he has to make judgments that affect us all. If, on a matter as glaring as this, his judgment is patently and fatally flawed, it raises fundamental questions as to how we can trust his judgment.

Even those who knew Peter Mandelson tangentially would have had enough suspicion to question his appointment. We in Northern Ireland know something of him: he was our Secretary of State at the turn of the century for two years, until he had to resign over the passport application scandal. I then next encountered him when I was a Member of the European Parliament and he was the United Kingdom’s Trade Commissioner in the European Commission from 2004 to 2008. That was not uncontroversial. In 2006, I well remember in the European Parliament the controversy about the fact that he had been holidaying on a yacht with an Italian tycoon whose business had benefited from his imposition of EU anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese shoes. There he was, months later, on the businessman’s yacht. Two years later, he was on another yacht—must be something about yachts—in Corfu with an Russian oligarch. Mr Mandelson as Trade Commissioner had just cut the EU import tariffs on aluminium, benefiting the oligarch’s company Rusal, which was in the aluminium business.

[Simon Hoare]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there may be some considerable merit in both the European Commission and the European Parliament looking over their paperwork to see precisely where these things link up and whether Peter Mandelson breached rules when he was serving as Commissioner?

[Jim Allister]

That was the point I was coming to.

Sadly, the European Union being the European Union, it had no great interest in investigating those matters; they were rather swept under the carpet. I say to the Government that Peter Mandelson was there as the United Kingdom’s Commissioner to the European Commission, and that gives status and opportunity to venture into inquiries about those matters. Then, of course, he came back to be sacked, again.

All of that is largely in the public domain, and that is before we come to Epstein. Equally in the public domain at the point of appointment was the knowledge that Mandelson had an ongoing relationship with a man whose release from prison for child abuse he described as his “liberation”. Our Prime Minister decided that he was a suitable person to be our ambassador in probably the most important capital in the world, in Washington. That was a fatal flaw of judgment by the Prime Minister. I fear that it will be the hallmark of much of his premiership that he made a decision such as that and then came to this House in September, when things began to leak out, and expressed his confidence in Mandelson. There was flawed judgment not only in appointing Mandelson, but in continuing to express confidence in him. The Prime Minister has finally run out of road on this issue, but left hanging around his neck is the fatal misstep of appointing Mandelson—a fatal flaw of judgment. It raises a fundamental point about the credibility of this Prime Minister. That will be the abiding legacy of this situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order. As he will know, the powers of the ISC are not a matter for the Chair. However, the Minister on the Front Bench will have heard his comments and will have every opportunity in winding up to respond to that specific point and to provide the entire House with the clarity that I believe it is looking for on that point.

[Simon Hoare]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point relates to the point of order from the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), which he did not quite finish. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has in the published register of interests significant monthly payments from X Corp, headquartered in California. That surely should have been a declared interest when making the intervention.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for that point of order. He will know that declarations of interest are not a matter for the Chair. However, he might be advised to refer that to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for investigation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This relates to the point the Minister made about the Metropolitan police asking that certain documents not be released, in case they prejudice a trial or investigation. You know as well as I do, Sir, the importance of privilege to this place. Will your office and counsel work with the Cabinet Office to ensure that the rights and privileges of Members of this House are protected?

[Mr Speaker]

Just to sum up, the Metropolitan police have no jurisdiction over what this House may wish to do. It will be a matter of whether or not the Government provide the information. I want to let Members know that the police cannot dictate to this House. I will leave it at that; I am not going to continue the debate, which has been a long and important one. Let us move on.