Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Sorcha Eastwood Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I want to start with a point of inquiry which I hope the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will be able to answer in his response later, so he has time to look into it if he does not know the answer already. Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister whether his former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney

“passed all his security vetting and whether he ever handled documents for which he had anything other than the appropriate level of clearance?”—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 43.]

I am not sure that the House thinks we got a clear answer from the Prime Minister, but even if at some point Morgan McSweeney did get clearance, I am sure the House would be horrified if that happened long after he started working in Downing Street and after he was involved in the Mandelson appointment. It would be good to get a date for when Morgan McSweeney got his security clearance and to confirm whether he handled any materials prior to that for which he did not have appropriate clearance. If the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister cannot find an answer to that question by the time he responds, perhaps he could answer in writing by the end of the week, given the urgency of this matter.

The situation we are in of course raises questions about process, and process is important, but let us not make the mistake of thinking that this is not fundamentally political. Politics drove this: what was unusual about the appointment of Mandelson was that it was a political appointment. It is not standard for the ambassador to the United States to be a political appointment. Whatever Peter Mandelson is and was—I have my own opinions on that—he was not a career civil servant. He had been up to other things, so the security vetting was clearly very important indeed. The fact that this was a fundamentally political decision by the Prime Minister, driven as well by Morgan McSweeney, is evidenced by the fact that everyone here knows that the Prime Minister would not have signed off someone with Peter Mandelson’s record to stand as a Labour candidate for a town council. Yet he was eased into the incredibly important position of ambassador to the United States of America.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

The hon. Gentleman is getting to the nub of the issue. This is about fairness in society. We tell everybody else outside of here, who we make the rules for, to play by the rules, but when you are in here yourself and you are the chief man, you can do what you want. That is what flies in the face of what the vast majority of the public think. Does he agree?

[Richard Burgon]

I totally agree with the hon. Member; she makes a powerful point. That is why the public are so outraged.

It was a political appointment. The reason the Prime Minister was so grateful to Mandelson was the role that he and Morgan McSweeney had played, through the organisation Labour Together, in getting him to be the leader of the Labour party. What was it that made them think Peter Mandelson was such a wise political appointment? It was because of what Peter Mandelson represented. Peter Mandelson epitomised the idea that the role of the Labour party is not what it was set up to do—to be a voice for working-class people and the trade union movement, speaking truth to power and changing society in the interests of the many not the few—but to be, as an organisation, closer and closer to the super-rich and powerful. It was because of Mandelson’s proximity to the super-rich and powerful that he was appointed to the role.

That is what has led to decisions that have made the Prime Minister and the Government unpopular. That is what has led to decisions such as the cut to the winter fuel payment and the cuts to disability benefits. The vision Mandelson put forward is polluting our party. That is why we need a full and independent investigation into Labour Together, the organisation favoured by Mandelson and McSweeney, which has dragged this party through the gutter. We see certain nefarious practices, tested in our party in opposition, now brought into Government. That needs to change, because otherwise we will end up with despair, leading to the election of a Trump-style Government in this country led by Reform—something that no decent person in this House should want to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

As others have already said, we can almost feel like everything has been said at this point. However, one thing that strikes me in all this is that this place is called the House of Commons. Our job is to come here and represent the common person, yet this entire debate is so far removed from the common person.

As I said last night, if one of my constituents in Lagan Valley is accidentally overpaid on a benefit, that is clawed back. No matter the human cost to that person, it is clawed back right away—no questions asked, no special circumstances. We see that writ large across our public life, and the reason is that we said that we valued a rules-based, ordered system. We wanted a society that was fair; we valued integrity and we valued trust. More importantly, we wanted to understand that the people who came to this House were going to act in a way that was beyond reproach—in a way that they expected everyone else across the UK to behave.

I am dealing with the case of a guy who is disabled. He accidentally parked in a parking space but did not have his blue badge displayed, and he is getting hammered. Maybe he will get off—who knows? But we are dealing with a situation where the Prime Minister of the day is now saying that he regrets the appointment of Mandelson. I am not going to get into the whys and wherefores of DV, STRAP, CTC and everything else, because my people in Lagan Valley do not know what that means. A lot of people are banking on the ordinary man and woman on the street not knowing what that means, and on them stopping being curious and suspending their expectations because this is all highfalutin, serious stuff and we do not really know what that is. Maybe they did do right. Maybe they did not do right. People are bamboozled, but I am going to break it down for them.

I would say this to the Prime Minister: what was it about the twice-disgraced paedophile-adjacent, self-styled prince of darkness that you found so attractive that you put him into this plum job—not just of Government but of the United Kingdom on the world stage? What was it, Prime Minister, that appealed to you about Peter Mandelson? We still do not have the answer. All I know is that my constituents are disgusted with all of this. And this is not the first time; it is not the second time and it is not the third time. It has been going round on the merry-go-round, no matter who it is.

I am really glad that the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) is in the Chamber, because he has worked tirelessly to make sure that the issues at the nub of this are heard—the duty of candour and the obligation to be honest with the public, let alone with our colleagues and the entire Administration—yet we are telling families that they cannot access documents for another 100 years due to a technicality. How am I to make that make sense to them?

I am indignant, and I am outraged. A lot of people in this building are expecting us to no longer be outraged. We will be outraged, because if we cannot prove that this works, we know who is going to step into the shadows. We know who is going to be out there setting the algorithms. We know who is going to be preying on the carcase of what was once a great democracy. We are seeing other democracies fail. Let’s not fool ourselves that the UK is immune from this.

The No. 1 thing we can do, within our gift, is to show that we still value integrity. For those reasons, there is not a single excuse that this Government can come up with that I can sell to my constituents or myself that I will believe. For those reasons, I believe that the Prime Minister needs to go—not just for his own party but, more importantly, for the sake of the country.