Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion
House of Lords · Lords Chamber · 17 Mar 2026 · 62 speeches · Official Report
Statement
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Wednesday 11 March.
“With permission, I will make a Statement to update the House on the Government’s response to the humble Address of 4 February. The Government committed to responding to that humble Address, and I can today confirm that we are releasing a first tranche of documents, which have been laid before the House in advance of this Statement, and are now published on GOV.UK for the public. There are further tranches of documents to come as officials work through the full scope of the humble Address.
It is important to recognise the strength of feeling across the House-my own included-in our disgust and horror at the nature and extent of the relationship that Peter Mandelson maintained with Jeffrey Epstein despite Epstein’s criminal conviction for abusing a vulnerable young girl. This included encouraging Jeffrey Epstein to fight that conviction.
Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed the most horrifying and disgusting crimes that destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. What he did is, of course, unforgivable, and I know that his victims will be in the thoughts and prayers of all Members across the House as we debate these issues today. Those victims will always be our first priority. Peter Mandelson’s behaviour was an insult to them and their suffering, and I am sorry that these events leave them with no choice but to relive their horrors, with still too little justice being served. That is why there is cross-party consensus in this House for full transparency and accountability, why anybody with knowledge must co-operate with inquiries, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and why the Government are therefore committed to publishing all documents relevant to the humble Address.
The Prime Minister has taken responsibility for Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States. He has acknowledged that it was a mistake and has apologised, not least for believing Peter Mandelson’s lies. As the Government have said previously, there are specific documents that this Government would like to have been able to disclose today, but which the Metropolitan Police has asked us not to publish yet in order to avoid prejudicing its ongoing criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson. We have agreed to that request and will therefore publish those documents in the future, as soon as the Metropolitan Police has confirmed that they will no longer prejudice its investigation.
As the House already understands, the Government must also carefully assess the risk of prejudicing UK national security or international relations posed by the release of any official documents. Any such material will be, and is being, referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. I thank the committee for its assistance in this matter and can confirm to the House that it has agreed with a limited redaction, requested by the Government, in relation to one document that we are publishing today. Outside of that arrangement, this process does not change the important and well-established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgments are, ultimately, for the Government.
The documents released today relate specifically to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States and the discussions that subsequently led to his dismissal. They include: the Cabinet Office due diligence report, which was passed to No. 10 prior to Peter Mandelson’s appointment; information provided to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister as to whether full due process was followed during Peter Mandelson’s appointment; papers relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States and minutes of meetings relating to the decision to appoint him; and details of the severance payments made to Peter Mandelson after the Prime Minister instructed that he be withdrawn as ambassador, thereby terminating his employment by the Civil Service.
While the documents point to public reports of an ongoing relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, the advice did not expose the depth and extent of their relationship, which became apparent only after the release of further files by Bloomberg and then the United States Department of Justice. After the Prime Minister reviewed the Cabinet Office due diligence report, which noted public reporting on Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, questions were put to Peter Mandelson by advisers in No. 10, as right honourable and honourable Members can see referred to on pages 8 and 94 of the bundle, and Peter Mandelson responded. These are matters that are currently the subject of an ongoing police investigation, and we will publish this document when the investigation allows. When we do, Members will be able to see Peter Mandelson’s answers for themselves, which the Prime Minister regrets believing. Peter Mandelson should never have been afforded the privilege of representing this country, and I reiterate to the House that the Prime Minister deeply regrets taking him at his word. It was a mistake to do so.
I can, however, confirm to the House-as agreed with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker-that we have shared the documents that are with the Metropolitan Police with the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on terms agreed by the Metropolitan Police, to ensure as much transparency to this House as possible.
As soon as the truth became apparent, following reporting by Bloomberg, the Prime Minister acted to withdraw Peter Mandelson from his role. I am sure that right honourable and honourable Members across the House will also read in these documents with interest how Peter Mandelson conducted himself after his withdrawal as ambassador. As the documents show, Peter Mandelson initially requested a sum for his severance payment that was substantially larger than the final payment-not just two or even three times, but more than six times the final amount, despite the fact that he was withdrawn from Washington because he had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister.
The Government obviously found that to be inappropriate and unacceptable. The settlement that was agreed was to avoid even higher further costs involving a drawn-out legal claim at the employment tribunal, given Peter Mandelson’s employment as a civil servant, rather than a Minister. As the House will know, Ministers can be dismissed without recourse to the employment tribunal, but civil servants are treated differently.
The Government are committed to complying with the humble Address, and further work is ongoing to compile the rest of the information in its scope. The Government recognise the urgency with which this work must be completed and will keep Members updated as that work progresses.
We know that these documents also reveal that the due diligence process fell short of what is required. We have already taken steps to address weaknesses in the system and to ensure that when standards of behaviour fall short of the high standards expected, there will be more serious consequences. We have launched the Ethics and Integrity Commission to promote the highest standards in public life and we are changing the process for direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles, so that where the role requires access to highly classified material, the candidate must have passed national security vetting before such appointments are announced or confirmed.
Ministers will now be expected to forgo severance payments following a serious breach of the Ministerial Code, and we have given the independent adviser the power to initiate investigations into ministerial misconduct without the need to seek the Prime Minister’s permission first. The Prime Minister has also strengthened the Ministerial Code, with stricter rules on gifts and hospitality, and we have asked the Conduct Committee in the Lords to review the Code of Conduct to consider what changes are required to ensure that Peers can be removed when they have brought the House into disrepute in the other place. We are also exploring whether the committee can tighten rules on lobbying and paid advocacy to bring the Lords in line with Commons procedures.
I want to note that the vast majority of individuals who apply to public service do so with the best of intentions. However, it is right that following the Peter Mandelson case, we have asked questions about how we can further strengthen the rules and processes that underpin the operation of government. We have appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, in the upper House to support this work on standards and constitutional reform as a new Minister in the Cabinet Office. I can also announce that the Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to conduct a review of the current arrangements relating to financial disclosures for Ministers and senior officials, transparency around lobbying and the business appointment rules, and we are conducting a review of the national security vetting system to ensure that we learn the lessons from the policy and process weaknesses related to Peter Mandelson’s case.
Let me conclude by reiterating that the whole House will agree that Jeffrey Epstein was a disgusting individual, and that Peter Mandelson’s decision to put their relationship before his victims and the vulnerable was reprehensible. As the Prime Minister has said,
‘the victims of Epstein have lived with trauma that most of us can barely comprehend. They have had to relive it again and again. And they have had to see accountability delayed and too often denied’.
We must all learn this hard lesson and end a culture that dismisses women’s experiences far too often and too easily. Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed, and the Government will comply with the humble Address. I will update the House further in due course. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, in discussing this matter we must, as always, keep Jeffrey Epstein’s victims and their families at the forefront of our minds. I pay tribute to the brave women and girls who were abused by him who have spoken out and called for justice. The Prime Minister told the House of Commons on 4 February that Peter Mandelson, when questioned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, “lied repeatedly”. To date, we are yet to see evidence of those lies, but we do now have proof that the Prime Minister was directly informed that Mandelson had maintained his relationship with Epstein after the latter had been convicted for child sex offences. Upon receipt of this information, the Prime Minister, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, did not undertake a searching inquiry for the truth but instead left it to two personal friends of Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney and Matthew Doyle-now the noble Lord, Lord Doyle-to engage in a farcical form of due diligence consisting of questions we are yet to see and answers that continue to be withheld. As if that were not concerning enough, it has been reported in the Times that no written record of the appointment of Mandelson exists. I find this extraordinary. As others who, like me, have worked in Downing Street know, there simply has to be an audit trail to transmit the Prime Minister’s decision. The decision, we are asked to believe, was made in an informal meeting with senior advisers. The House should pause at this stage to recollect...
My Lords, we on these Benches hesitate to criticise the due diligence process by the security services and the Civil Service; it seems to have been effectively and efficiently done but disregarded by the Prime Minister’s political advisers and overridden by the Prime Minister. Presumably he thought the task of establishing and maintaining a close relationship with President Trump demanded someone like Peter Mandelson in spite of, or even because of, his flaws. Can the Minister tell us when further files will be released? I have just looked through the first package that has been released, which is actually very thin. There is clearly an awful lot more to come out-to repeat, there is a lot to come out not just from London but from Washington, which will overlap on to this. I am sure the whole House will be happy that the Minister has been appointed by the Prime Minister to look further into this. We will all do our best to co-operate with her in making sure that standards and procedures are improved. Can she tell us more about her work programme in her new responsibilities on ethics and standards? Will that work be primarily within government or across the parties and both Houses to make sure that, as far as possible, it gets the maximum buy-in from everyone concerned and interested in politics, and will therefore have the best chance of succeeding? Will she, for example, consider strengthening the parliamentary oversight of major public appointments, which is, after all, a...
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their questions. It is incredibly important that these matters are addressed, not least because they now drive a huge amount of my own personal work. I will come on to that. First, I will provide an update following the Statement made in the other place last week by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister on the release of the first tranche of documents in response to the humble Address Motion of 4 February. As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister rightly stated: “Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed … disgusting crimes that destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. What he did is … unforgivable”. His victims must be “our first priority. Peter Mandelson’s behaviour”- including encouraging Jeffrey Epstein to fight his conviction for abusing a vulnerable young girl- “was an insult to them and their suffering ”.-[ Official Report , Commons, 11/3/26; col. 359.] We should also never forget that every time we discuss Epstein’s horrendous behaviour, his victims relive awful experiences. These survivors must be front and centre when we debate all issues related to Jeffrey Epstein, his network and their impact. That is why there is a cross-party consensus in both Houses for full transparency and accountability. The Government are committed to publishing all documents relevant to the humble Address and last week published the first tranche. These documents relate specifically to the decision to appoint...
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, is participating remotely and I invite him to speak now.
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend the Minister for bringing to the House this excellent Statement. I congratulate her on her very appropriate appointment, which shows the sincerity and determination of the Government to take this issue seriously. I recognise that the Liberal spokesperson asked some sensible questions, which the Minister has responded to. However, I was really disappointed that the Official Opposition took this as another opportunity to attack the Prime Minister and his integrity. That was an unfortunate lapse of judgment by their Front Bench. Will the Minister confirm that this House needs to look at its own procedures and arrangements as well? The recent Chadlington case shows that we are not above reproach. Will she indicate that this will be a much wider look at the whole aspect of how the Government and Parliament operate? Will she indicate how much the whole long and complicated exercise might cost, because it is not without substantial cost?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
It is a true joy to see my noble friend, if only on a screen. I am so pleased that he is well enough to participate, if remotely. I cannot wait to see him back in his place. My noble friend asked me several questions. I want to focus on the fact that there is a responsibility on every Member of your Lordships’ House and everyone who serves in this building, whether in the other place or here, as well as those who support all of us, to help rebuild trust in politics. My noble friend spent a long career door-knocking and campaigning, and we know how important this is. With regard to the costs, I do not have a total cost to give my noble friend at this time and it will not be possible to give a running update. However, I can confirm that Civil Service resource has been redeployed, meaning that this will not create any net cost to the taxpayer. Any additional costs will be set out in due course.
Would the Minister agree that one of the ironies of this sorry saga is that His Majesty’s Government had a highly competent ambassador in Washington DC, Karen Pierce, who had the confidence of the Trump Administration and was widely respected in that city? Does the Minister agree that no Government should be appointing political cronies to this type of position but should be selecting from the wide category of highly competent professional diplomats?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
The noble Lord, as ever, raises an interesting and non-straightforward point for me to answer. On the process, while this was unusual it is not unheard of. Three Members of your Lordships’ House were political appointees from both parties to hold ambassadorial roles, both by previous Labour Governments and by the Conservative Government. There is a clear process for such appointments. The process was followed; the process did not work; the process has now changed.
The private lives of the decadent rich are always going to arouse interest in the media and with the general public. The Prime Minister has failed to answer some very embarrassing questions about what he knew when he made this appointment. In my opinion, this whole thing became overwhelmingly more serious when allegations were made that Lord Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten had been repaying the hospitality they received by giving classified government financial and economic information to a financier to help him with his investments. If that is true, it is one of the most serious allegations of corruption in public life in recent years. We normally assume that we do not have that in this country. Can the Minister assure me that the Metropolitan Police is being given full support in getting on with the task of investigating that, and that there will be no suggestion of political pressure at any stage to stop the full force of the law being brought forward? Others must be deterred in future from being tempted to go in for that kind of corrupt behaviour.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
Before I answer the substance of the question, while I appreciate the issues that were raised, the private lives of the decadent rich are of no odds here. It is about abuse and violence against women and girls, and illegal behaviour; it is not about a decadent life. Regardless of whether they are rich or not, people should be held to account with the full force of the law. On classified government information, noble Lords will be aware there is a live police investigation so I cannot comment on the detail. However, I would expect the Met Police to receive absolute full support. If laws have been broken, people should be prosecuted.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made an extremely pertinent point about Lord Mandelson’s predecessor, Dame Karen Pierce. First, can the Minister confirm that, during the scope of this investigation, we will look at the representations the Prime Minister will have received arguing that Dame Karen should have been kept in place to handle a very unpredictable and volatile president? Can the Minister confirm what pressure the Prime Minister came under, and from whom, to replace her with Lord Mandelson? Secondly, if we are investigating Lord Mandelson’s suitability for public office of any sort historically, will the scope of that investigation be extended to his time as an EU commissioner in Brussels? There are some very serious questions and allegations surrounding his time there.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
It may be helpful to inform your Lordships’ House that the previous ambassador to America had come to the end of her tenure. The question would have been whether the tenure would be extended or not, not whether she should have been removed. I do not believe that is within the scope of the paperwork; the paperwork being released directly pertains to the appointment and withdrawal of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord. On the scope of the humble Address and the EU processes, I believe other organisations are looking at other roles and some of the history. On the scope of what is currently in play, there is a live police investigation. The matter before us relating to the humble Address concerns the immediate period before and during his appointment.
My Lords, the humble Address referred on several occasions to electronic communications between officials in the Government and political appointees. Under the Freedom of Information Act, it has been long-standing practice that communications between Ministers and officials, on whatever device, and whether they are private or government emails, are within scope of freedom of information laws. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are working on the basis that all such communications, whether they are private or government emails, are within scope? Assuming they are, what steps are being taken to secure and recover such information from those officials who are no longer within the Government’s employ-specifically, the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
To confirm, all electronic communication is in scope and will be released in future tranches of materials. On the steps being taken to secure the materials, the Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office has contacted all other Permanent Secretaries to make sure that materials are being secured and passed on. Those materials are currently being collated for further release. On the former chief of staff, as set out by my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, there was correspondence between No. 10 and Lord Peter Mandelson, in which a number of follow-up questions were asked. I would assume that those materials are going to be released as well.
My Lords, I understand that the complexities of employment law mean that you have to pay someone some money when they work for you. Has anyone approached Mandelson, who has done disgraceful things, to ask whether he wants to give this money to a buy-a-warship fund, or some other charity, rather than take it for himself?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
My Lords, I wondered how my noble friend was going to get a warship into this question-and, as ever, he succeeded. My noble friend is right; from my perspective, Peter Mandelson should donate his severance to any charity that campaigns for, or protects, women who have been targeted and have experienced horrendous violence. That is probably the least we are owed.
My Lords, is it the Government’s case that Lord Mandelson misled them to get the appointment? Can the Minister give us a couple of examples of what he said to fool the Prime Minister?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
The noble Lord will be able to read any and all correspondence for himself as further tranches are published.
Further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord West, I understand that the amount that Lord Mandelson is to receive is much less than he asked for. The Minister said that that was to save costs. In many cases, there is surely a commercial reason for settling, but, given that this case is of such constitutional importance, would it not be far better to see whether a court agrees that Lord Mandelson is entitled to any compensation at all?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
The noble Lord raises an important and valid point. In this instance, it was considered a sensible move to remove Lord Mandelson from the payroll as quickly as possible.
My Lords, the Minister quite rightly referred to Epstein as a despicable person, as did the Prime Minister and other members of the Government. However, was he not a despicable person the first time he was put in jail for the appalling abuse of young women? Peter Mandelson stayed in Epstein’s house in America after that, which the Prime Minister knew. A lot of the public will think that that must have been enough to make it clear that he could not be appointed as our ambassador.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that Mr Epstein was a despicable and horrendous human being. The Prime Minister was genuinely not aware of the depth of their continuing relationship, which did not become clear until after the publication of the Bloomberg papers.
My Lords-
My Lords-
My Lords, we have time to hear from both Benches. Let us go to the Labour Benches first and then the Conservative Benches.
My Lords, this is not the first political appointment to an ambassadorship, including that in Washington, which has not been without controversy. But would the Minister confirm that there are some circumstances in which it is appropriate for there to be a political appointment, rather than one which is selected from Civil Service ranks, provided it is quite clear that that is the responsibility of the Ministers making the appointment? Secondly, could she confirm that it is quite common for organisations that are facing what may seem quite unreasonable severance requests from individuals to make a judgment about what the cost is of fighting those arrangements and to reach a balanced decision? In the circumstances where people are criticising the nature of some of the material being published and trying to read too much into it, is it not the case-as Bismarck said, if you ever like laws or sausages, never watch either being made-that this minute inspection, which quite properly the Opposition have demanded should be released, will reveal the imperfections of any process in government, or indeed anywhere else?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
My noble friend is absolutely right. There have been several political appointments, as I have said, including of Members of your Lordships’ House, to ambassadorial and diplomatic roles. Also, there have been direct ministerial appointments made outside this. This is not an unusual process. However, I appreciate it is rare in the diplomatic field. What we have to do is make sure that, as and when political appointees are considered to be appropriate, the nature of our politics should not suggest that we are therefore excluded from other roles, but we should make sure that due process is followed. Given recent events, we have changed due process both on direct ministerial appointments and on any future political appointments in the diplomatic space. The noble Lord also asked about negotiations around severance payments. I am a former trade union officer and spent a great deal of time negotiating other people’s packages. Negotiations in this space are not unusual, but the noble Lord’s most important point was about imperfections in the system. I am viewing this as an opportunity to reflect on what has gone wrong and what we now need to fix. But let us be clear that there have been significant weaknesses in processes. The onus now is on this Government to strengthen the processes.
My diplomatic friends tell me that, if they are up for a sensitive posting abroad, the due diligence that the FCO carries out is a brutal, intrusive and pretty degrading exercise, but a very effective one. Why is the system of due diligence for a political appointment different?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
My Lords, it is not. It is exactly the same in terms of the security and vetting processes. I would like to reassure noble Lords that the vetting process that was undertaken on Peter Mandelson was expedited but followed every step.
My Lords, following the comment from my noble friend, and as I mentioned before, the vetting process is not really the issue here. We have Members of this House who are former diplomats and ambassadors, and it is very rare in my recollection that we have had any issues with those who have taken up posts abroad on our behalf. To widen this discussion into codes of conduct for Members in the future and how we must now move towards different vetting procedures is obfuscation. The points raised by my noble friend Lady Finn on the Front Bench are the questions we need answered. The hub of this matter is that we have a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who knowingly appointed Peter Mandelson, who had remained friends with a convicted paedophile, to represent us in one of the most key posts as ambassador to the United States of America. So, my question to the noble Baroness on the Front Bench is: given the reality that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom clearly has no judgment and that to obfuscate and try to blame everyone else is really inappropriate, will he, on this issue, stand down, because clearly his judgment is lost?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
My Lords, I have tried not to be party political on this, but I find it a little rich to be taking lectures from the Opposition Benches, given what we experienced with “partygate” for years and what Liz Truss’s Government did. I find this very difficult. Also, for the record, the idea that the appointment of a Minister-
Noble Lords
Oh!
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
Noble Lords can listen to me or not, but the concept that our appointing a Minister to review the standards landscape in the whole is an obfuscation is disappointing to say the least. In terms of the Prime Minister’s responsibilities, he has apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson. He believed Peter Mandelson’s lies in response to the questions put to him. As soon as the Prime Minister became aware of this in September, Peter Mandelson was dismissed promptly.
My Lords-
My Lords-
My Lords, we will hear from somebody on the Conservative Benches.
My Lords-
My Lords-
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
My Lords, we are, hopefully, discussing the concept of rebuilding trust in politics and how we talk to each other. I will answer questions from either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness, but it is for them to decide.
My Lords, is it the case that, in the course of the appointment of Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister never spoke to him?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
Noble Lords will appreciate that there is ongoing material, which will be published. All of that will be a matter of public record in due course.
My Lords, this feels a bit “Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil” in the casual way that the Prime Minister followed process in appointing the US ambassador, the then Lord Mandelson. There is a concern that, when the humble Address was passed, former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney still worked for the Government and did not resign until a few days later. Yet Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, has said that everything the Government have has been published. I am concerned that all the documents have not yet been released by the Government. What has happened to the communications between Morgan McSweeney and anybody else involved in this while he was still working for the Prime Minister?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
My Lords, I believe I have said on numerous occasions that this is the first tranche of material that has been published, as did the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. More material will be published in due course. I have answered several questions on that. I look forward to discussing it again with noble Lords when that is done.