Kieran Mullan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Mar 2026 · Rural Roads · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister accept that the changes to the funding formula have made rural areas worse off—yes or no?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Right now there are potentially thousands of rapists, paedophiles and perverts, who are responsible for some of the worst offences against women and girls, who this Government are going to let out of prison earlier. That is a disgrace, and at the very least the Government should be transparent about it. When I asked them to tell us what their estimates and modelling were on the number of people who were due to be let out, at first they denied they had any of that information; then they admitted that they did, but refused to publish it. Does the Minister not think that they should be transparent about the consequences of their own policies?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I wish that the Minister got as angry about the fact that her Government are releasing thousands of rapists, paedophiles and perverts from prison early. If the Government will not tell us about the reality of the consequences, surely they should at least tell the victims. One of the worst aspects of this policy is the fact that many of those victims will have been given an estimated date for when the perpetrators would be released. That date will now be brought forward, and the perpetrators will get out of prison earlier than the victims were led to believe. Does the Minister think that, at the very least, the Government should write to the victims in advance to let them know that they are letting the perpetrators of those horrendous crimes out of prison earlier?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  The problem with these sorts of scandals is that as time moves on, more and more people are tarnished by them. Last week, when the papers revealed that Mandelson received £75,000, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister whether the Government were worried about what he might say at an employment tribunal. He said, “That was not the rationale. The documents will speak for themselves.” —[ Official Report , 11 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 367.] Of course, the documents do speak for themselves. They say that part of the business case for the payout—which the Minister was aware of, because it was sent to him—was that “Given the reputational impact for HMG, a modest settlement as proposed is the recommended course of action”. They also say that “the individual has a high profile which could give rise to reputational damage to the FCDO and HMG were a court or tribunal claim to be pursued”, which is exactly what I suggested based on what was in the papers, but which the Minister denied was part of the reasoning. Does he want to apologise for inadvertently misleading the House, and does he agree that those papers show that the Government broke Treasury rules on how such payments should be made?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Marriage Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)—who I consider a friend—on securing the debate. I could characterise him as a romantic perhaps, given his decision to focus on this topic, and I know from his early-day motion that he has taken a close interest in these issues. From the perspective of the justice system, marriage is not simply a social institution, but a legal status that carries significant consequences in areas ranging from inheritance and family law to taxation, immigration and parental responsibility. Because of that, the framework governing marriage rightly sits within the responsibilities of the Ministry of Justice. With that responsibility comes an obligation to ensure not only that the legal framework is workable in practice, but that it continues to uphold the seriousness and integrity of marriage as an institution. The statutory 28-day notice period, the processes surrounding registration, and the complexity of guidance for couples all deserve periodic scrutiny to ensure they continue to serve their intended purpose. Safeguards are essential, and notice periods allow registrars to verify eligibility, while also helping to prevent sham marriages or coercion, but the experiences of couples and registrars suggest there may be circumstances where greater clarity and flexibility would improve how the law operates in practice. However, any move to modernise the framework must be undertaken with care. Reform should not create a system that treats marriage casually or allows the institution to be diluted. Rather, modernisation should reinforce the seriousness of marriage while ensuring the law functions effectively in practice. My right hon. Friend drew attention to the perspective of Gretna Green—one of the most historic and recognisable wedding destinations in the United Kingdom—which is in his constituency. For centuries, Gretna Green has occupied a unique place in the story of marriage law in these islands. Following the Marriage Act 1753, couples famously travelled north of the border to marry under Scotland’s more flexible rules. That history has become embedded in the cultural identity of the place and has helped to shape a thriving wedding destination that continues to attract couples from across the UK and beyond. Today, that tradition supports not only the ceremonies themselves, but a wider network of hotels, restaurants and local businesses that rely on the wedding sector, and for which my right hon. Friend is a champion and advocate in all the right ways. The “Love Shouldn’t Wait” campaign launched by Gretna Green Ltd raises a number of practical questions about whether aspects of the current system create avoidable delays for couples wishing to marry. Although the MOJ must rightly approach such proposals with care, it is appropriate that we listen to the experience of those who work daily with couples navigating the system. From a justice policy perspective, my right hon. Friend’s EDM raised several points: first, whether the current framework provides sufficiently clear and transparent mechanisms for urgent marriages in exceptional circumstances; secondly, whether the system of guidance and administration should be simplified so that couples and registrars alike can navigate it more easily; and, thirdly, whether the continued development of secure digital processes could streamline elements of the marriage registration system, while preserving safeguards against fraud. However, in pursuing such reforms, we must be careful that the pendulum does not swing too far in the other direction. It is worth remembering that the question of modernising marriage law is not new; over the past decade, successive Governments have recognised that aspects of the legal framework governing weddings in England and Wales warranted wider review. Most recently, the Law Commission set out a comprehensive package of recommendations for reforming wedding law in its report published in 2022. Among its key proposals was a shift away from the current system in England and Wales, which largely regulates weddings through the buildings in which they take place, towards a model centred on the officiant conducting the ceremony. Alongside that longer-term review, the previous Government introduced more limited reforms where there was a clear practical need, such as the changes made during the covid pandemic to allow weddings to carry on. However, Ministers at the time were clear that more fundamental questions about wedding law should be considered comprehensively, rather than through piecemeal change. My right hon. Friend has also suggested the appointment of a marriage tsar; I do not know whether he is suggesting that he might be a candidate for that role, but it is something we should look at. As a member of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, I wanted to touch on the contribution from the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), because I have a lot of sympathy for the point she made. The Conservative party has not reached a settled policy on it at this stage, but I am personally very sympathetic to her suggestion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale has rightly drawn attention to the experience of communities such as Gretna Green, where the intersection between legal regulation and real-world practice is particularly visible. By listening to those experiences, and by considering the practical reforms highlighted in EDM 2200 and the substantial work already undertaken on wider wedding law reform, Ministers can help to ensure that our marriage laws remain legally sound and practically workable, while continuing to respect and uphold the institution of marriage itself. I once again thank my right hon. Friend for securing the debate, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on the concerns raised.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will know that the Government have a Bill about the duty of accountability and candour going through the House; one of his colleagues on the Front Bench will confirm that that requires Ministers to answer questions with candour. Several weeks ago, three Members of this House asked him what Mandelson’s pay-off was, and he refused to answer. I ask him to reflect on whether he acted with candour. Back to the question of whether Mandelson deserved a pay-out, is it not the truth that the Government know that this tissue—this story or suggestion that they were lied to and that there was no possible way they could have found out the truth—would have been torn apart in an employment tribunal, and that is why they did not want to take the case to one?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a positive debate in terms of the exchange of ideas, and there have been some fantastic contributions. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for the very personal way in which they made their cases. There is consensus that for victims, the current waits are terrible and an experience that they should not have to go through. It is not only damaging for them as individuals, but some of them drop out as a result. We see perpetrators who would have been found guilty walking away and escaping justice, and we see defendants who would have been found innocent having to wait too long to have the accusations over their head removed.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Not yet. We must have a serious discussion about why that is. It was disappointing for those who sought to put forward a credible analysis of what has happened that the Justice Secretary and most Labour Members did not mention the word “covid” once. In reality, the backlogs in the Crown court under this Government before covid were lower than those we inherited from the previous Government. It is fair to say that for many years—25 years, as we heard from the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell)—it has been accepted that not enough political attention has been paid to our justice system. The question is, what do we do about it? There is no single answer to that question, because there is no single problem. A whole variety of things are going wrong in our justice system. We are seeing late pleas because of insufficient early advice, faulty courtrooms, a lack of reports from probation services, and problems with prison transport. All those problems, and others, cause the delays and other issues. The central recommendation of the Leveson report was for more sitting days— 130,000—and that will require more venues, more court staff, more prosecution staff, more solicitors and more barristers. However, as I have mentioned, there are simpler things that we can do ahead of that, and we need look no further than Liverpool Crown court under the leadership of Andrew Menary. At a time when the national average wait from charge to trial is 321 days, that court manages an average wait of 206 days. As far as I am aware, neither the Justice Secretary nor any of his team has visited Liverpool Crown court to speak to the judge and hear how he does that. In fact, he achieves it partly through the use of early guilty pleas. Nationally, we lose court time because too many people—31%—plead guilty on the day of a trial. In Liverpool, the proportion is just 6%. Those are not bold reforms. They are not measures that allow a Secretary of State to give a grand speech and consider himself a great reformer. It is just hard work, or what one Member described as “pretty boring” stuff that gets the job done. As was pointed out by the hon. Members for Warrington North and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), these reforms will not only fail to achieve what the Government claim they will; they will be an overbearing, destructive distraction from that sort of hard work. And what will the Government gain? Certainly not what they claim in the impact assessment, which is full of assumptions and fantasies, and certainly not anything that might be described as modelling. The Government want us to believe that 24,000 Crown court days will simply be converted into 8,500 magistrate days, but they have no evidence for that claim. They want us to believe that trials without juries will be 20% shorter, but they have no evidence to support that claim either.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman read the entire statement. What the institution actually said was that the modelling “relies on several assumptions—some of which are highly uncertain.” Did he read that part of the statement? I do not think he did, because it claims that there will be reductions of only 2% in trial time as a result of these reforms. What are we being asked to give up? We are being asked to give up 800 years of English legal history. A sledgehammer is being taken to the cornerstone of our system, and to fundamental rights. Thousands of accused people risk spending years in prison, losing their livelihoods, losing their families, losing their homes, and not being able to make the simple request for a forum of their peers to make that decision—a part of the justice system that is trusted and supported more than any other. That is perhaps why it is being defended so robustly by those within it. Just today, thousands of retired judges and retired and working legal professionals asked the Justice Secretary to think again. What has been the Government’s response to that? It has been to denigrate the role of jury trials. We have had the appalling sight of the Lord Chancellor comparing three years in prison to a scraped knee. We have heard the Minister for Courts say that being accused of an offence of sexual assault, which could be considered either way at the moment, was not serious—an accusation that, if proven, would lose someone their livelihood. It is shameful and desperate stuff from a desperate Government. In contrast, what did the Prime Minister say? He said: “The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.” Now he asks us to upend that balance in a historically unprecedented way. Of course, we can talk about the facts and figures, as woeful and thin as they have been, but at the end of the day, these decisions come from political instinct and a deep sense of what is right and wrong. That is not shallow; it is based on knowledge and years of experience —the sort that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) have. That experience told them, before they saw the figures, that the Government’s approach was not going to work. They have been proven right by the figures. Is it any surprise that the Prime Minister does not understand this? Time and again, we have seen that he is absolutely devoid of any sort of deep political instinct. His only instinct is to chop and change his mind as it suits him on any particular day. No wonder he has been, more than any other Prime Minister in recent history, an agent of the civil service. He has forgotten the golden rule that civil servants advise and Ministers decide. The Conservatives have said yes to more resources, to efficiency and to the hard work of getting things done, but we have said no to eroding a fundamental right, no to more overbearing state power, and no to gutting and scouring away the mechanism by which all of us watch the watchmen. The Courts Minister tells us that the Bill has been introduced on a point of political principle, whereas other Members have argued that it is a matter of necessity and resource. Too often, Labour Members have said yes to a Prime Minister to whom they should have said no. They have an opportunity tonight to say no to the Prime Minister when it counts. Let us hope they have the courage to do so.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Immigration Policy · Hansard source

  More

  The only country that has successfully tackled illegal boat crossings similar to ours is Australia, and it did so not by paying people £40,000 per family to leave, but by sending them to a safe third country. I noticed that the Minister completely failed to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). Does the Minister accept the reality that the only way to tackle this problem will be to get on with having a safe third country to deport these people to?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Local Museums · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this debate, which I think may become a battle royale of whose constituency has the best museums. I will begin with Bexhill and Battle, which has a remarkable number of both local museums and national heritage sites. Let me take you on a tour of what we have to offer, Ms Lewell. Bexhill Museum, founded in 1914, has been educating and inspiring the community for well over a century. It remains a traditional local museum run largely by volunteers, yet it continues to thrive and evolve. It is currently completing the final stages of a comprehensive refurbishment made possible through a £390,000 grant from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport via Arts Council England in 2023. The museum holds an extraordinary and eclectic collection across four galleries, ranging from dinosaur footprints and Viking swords to a model of the town with a railway inherited from the Izzard family. It also has a restored 1895 fire engine, soon go on display. Around 1,500 schoolchildren visit each year, with a further 2,000 benefiting from loan boxes of artefacts and replicas used in the classroom. It even has a replica of the Bayeux tapestry. That takes me a few short miles away to the historic town of Battle, most famously known as the site of the battle of Hastings in 1066, where we have the Battle Museum of Local History. Housed in the historic Almonry building, this volunteer-run museum complements the internationally significant Battle abbey, which is one of the most visited heritage sites in the country. The town’s identity is naturally shaped by the events of 1066, but the museum rightly takes a broader approach, bringing together the collections and historical knowledge of the town while engaging the public in researching and understanding the area’s wider story. Its displays explore topics ranging from the development of public health and medicine to the experiences of local residents during the second world war. It does not stop there—we have museums in each and every corner of the constituency. In the west, we have Pevensey Courthouse Museum and Gaol. Current curator, Robert Slater, told me about the role that ultra-small local museums like that one play. They keep history alive not only through the stories of kings and battles, but through the ordinary lives of local people. Visitors to the courthouse can see coroner’s records and records of those who fell foul of the law—facing anything from fines to public whipping—and stories of smuggling along the Sussex coast. What makes these museums truly special is the extraordinary commitment of local volunteers and trustees. Despite being run by volunteers, the Courthouse Museum welcomed nearly 5,500 visitors last year alone. On the other side of the constituency is the Bright Foundation, founded by the Oscar-winning costume designer John Bright. Over the past 50 years, he has collaborated with and made costumes for a wide range of designers for productions ranging from “Pirates of the Caribbean” to “Downton Abbey”. His generosity underpins the Bright Foundation, which includes the Barn Theatre and Museum. This remarkable local charity, based in Westfield, gives children and young people opportunities to engage with arts and creativity. It includes John Bright’s toy museum, with a collection of more than 400 puppets, 400 dolls’ houses, and even a trainset that was featured in the 1997 film “The Borrowers”. With his support, the foundation engages more than 4,500 people a year, 44% of whom are in receipt of free school meals or have special educational needs. However, the contribution of that museum, and others, is sometimes overlooked when budgets are being drawn up and limited resources are available. For example, for every £1 of revenue that Bexhill Museum receives from the Government, it has to generate £8 of its own through the work of the volunteers in the shop and so on. I have a few questions for the Minister. To build on the excellent point from the hon. Member for Thurrock about small pots of money, we need transparency on what local government actually spends in this respect. We also need to understand, at a time of local government reorganisation, how museums can sometimes fall between the cracks among the various responsibilities. The Government need to understand that museums are not just receivers of funding but parts of local government infrastructure that contribute to the economy and to jobs. I will finish by thanking all the volunteers across all the museums in Bexhill and Battle who make such a fantastic contribution to our culture and heritage.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Local Museums · Hansard source

  More

  Members of Parliament and the public are also perfectly within their rights to say that they think they are a bad idea. It is a free speech issue, as much as anything. If a museum wants to put on an exhibition and then introduce all sorts of other political elements, the museum’s members and politicians—all of us—are perfectly free to say that we think it is a bad idea and a bad use of time. What is wrong with that?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Local Museums · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member helpfully reminds me that I forgot to mention that Bexhill is also putting itself forward for town of culture. I am happy to bribe him any time.

• 4 Mar 2026 · China: Foreign Interference Arrests · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister said, at the heart of this is the question of whether our enemies and malign actors fear the consequences of hostile acts against us. That question is why many of us say that the embassy should be paused. Why would the Chinese be worried about consequences of spying, when this week, another malign actor attempted to kill British armed forces personnel and attacked sovereign territory, but suffered no consequences? What lesson does the Minister think China will take from our failure to defend our own territory from military attack?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to put the Chair in the position of having to give an immediate answer, but as others have said, there are rumours online that the individuals arrested for spying include the partner of a Labour MP. I do not know any suggestion that that Labour MP has done anything wrong—it could have been any of us, potentially. However, we all know that MPs work with MPs from their own party and with those from other parties, sharing information and campaigning together, so we may well have been subjected to activities and we could volunteer information about them to the House authorities and others. Unless we have confirmation about who that individual is, that is not an easy position to be in. Will the House give consideration to letting us know who the individual is, so that we might reflect on whether we can offer any helpful information?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Bayeux Tapestry Exhibition · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing the debate. For those—perhaps our constituents—who do not know the etiquette of the House, an Adjournment debate is typically a debate for a single Member, so it is gracious of her to make time for me to speak briefly in this debate on something that we have worked on together. I want to thank her for the work that she has done to date. When we talk about the Bayeux tapestry, we are talking about history that is deeply interwoven in the culture and history of my constituency of Bexhill and Battle. William landed in Pevensey, which is in the west of the constituency. People can visit the ruins of Pevensey castle there, and we have a museum in Pevensey that exhibits the important local history from that perspective. Almost pinpointing the middle of my constituency is Battle abbey, which is perhaps the biggest tourist attraction in my constituency and is visited by thousands of people every year. It was built by William as penance for the bloodshed and violence that local people had experienced as part of the battle of Hastings. As the hon. Member indicated, there is some dispute about whether the battle took place there. As the Member for Bexhill and Battle, I will plant my flag firmly on the argument that it took place where Battle abbey is built. Every year there is a re-enactment of the battle, which is increasingly popular. It had one of its best ever years last year, and it is a major tourist attraction. Both the ruins of Pevensey castle and Battle abbey are important English Heritage sites. I thank them for meeting me recently to talk about the opportunities that the Bayeux tapestry presents and for all the work they do all year round on those sites and other important historical sites in my constituency. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye did an excellent job of going into the detail of all the different things that we want to gain from the exhibit visiting the UK, so I will just re-emphasise a couple of really important points. Of course, the exhibition will benefit many different places, but we should expect the greatest attention and effort to be put into 1066 country to ensure its success. First, we must ensure that the benefits of the visit are felt outside London. As the hon. Lady said, the visit is being organised by the British Museum, so while it is important that London gets its share of the tourism spend that will come with the tapestry’s visit, that spend is vitally needed in our constituencies. The British Museum and other organisations must set up a clear programme to ensure that visits to the tapestry secure visits to our constituencies, and vice versa, so that people who would normally have just visited the historical sites in 1066 country will be encouraged to visit the exhibition of the tapestry. Secondly, how often do schoolchildren get to feel that their local history is as important as this? The tapestry is a major exhibit and its visit is a major historical event, so it is really important that local schoolchildren get to visit the tapestry, and that the exhibition is made affordable and accessible to them. There will be opportunities for schoolchildren from across the country to visit the exhibition, but let us ensure that the programme is really supportive of our local schoolchildren. To finish, I will mention a fantastic community project, the La Mora tapestry project, that demonstrates that our history is an ongoing part of our local culture, not something newly discovered. Christina Greene and her team are replicating elements of the tapestry that relate to the La Mora, the ship in which William sailed. For some time now, residents in my constituency have been able to visit Battle library and take time to carefully stitch parts of the replica tapestry, under the watchful eye of Christina, who ensures they are using the right techniques. They have done an amazing job researching wools, so the wools that they use are the same or as close as we can get to the wools that were originally used. Even more incredibly, she noticed, as I am sure other historians will have done, the absence of the female voice in the historical documents, including the tapestry, which tells a very male-centric story. William’s wife, the queen, is thought to be a major player and to have helped to commission the boat, so new bits of the story are being added to the tapestry that focus on her role, which is great for the schoolgirls who come to take part in the sewing of the tapestry. The tapestry is already part of our history locally, and we make day-to-day use of it culturally and historically. Let us ensure that the Bayeux tapestry’s visit helps to weave some new stories, projects and ideas. It is great opportunity to do that. I really want the Government to work with the British Museum, which is co-operating and with which we are having more productive discussions, but the efforts of the Minister to keep that all on track would be greatly appreciated.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On a recent visit to St Richard’s Catholic college in my constituency, students told me that they face paying an astonishing extra £400 a year in bus fares. How can the Minister justify to those students and others in my constituency the cutting of our bus service funding by £2.5 million?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We obviously benefit from enormous privilege in this House, because we are able to say things without any worry about what might happen legally. The Minister said several times in her statement that Courtsdesk has admitted that it breached the data-sharing agreement. Courtsdesk has been absolutely clear with me that it has never admitted that it breached the agreement. I wonder if the Minister might want to take the chance at least to caveat what she said in the Chamber.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  Here we are again. Not even one week after this Government had to be forced to release the Mandelson files—looking out for themselves and not for victims—we are back with a Government who preach transparency and practise the opposite. The pattern is clear. They will not release migrant crime data. They fought our efforts to institute a grooming gangs inquiry every step of the way. That campaign was fuelled by journalists uncovering what was happening in our courts. What are the Government now intent on doing? Delete, delete, delete. They want to make it harder for journalists to report the truth. What is it that they are worried about? Could it be that they want to hide the fact that thousands of criminals will escape justice under their Sentencing Act 2026? Could it be that when they erode our rights to jury trials, they do not want the public to hear about the results? Can anyone draw any conclusion other than that they are determined to escape accountability for their damaging policies? The Courtsdesk project has been a huge success. Introduced by the shadow Home Secretary, it has revolutionised the transparency of our courtrooms. Courtsdesk reports that more than 1,500 journalists have used the platform. That is why so many journalists are rallying in support. What of the apparent data breach that the Government are using as an excuse for this? Have they engaged with Courtsdesk? No, they have not. There has been not one single meeting, despite multiple requests to the Minister. It is not just officialdom that is to blame. The Courts Minister has been written to by Courtsdesk and several major media organisations. She has been told directly how important this system is. This is a Minister who comes to the House and professes how vital magistrates courts are to the Government’s plans to take a sledgehammer to jury trials. She needs to tell us why she and her officials have refused even to meet Courtsdesk. What assessment have they made of the impact of this decision on open justice? Delete, delete, delete; stonewall, ignore and deflect—that is the character of this Government in their operations. We will not stand by and let them do the same in our courts.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Court Reporting Data · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question) : To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the implications for open justice of the impending deletion of the Courtsdesk court reporting data archive.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Standards in Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  The problem with the list of measures that the Chief Secretary read out is that, unfortunately, not one will protect us from the Prime Minister’s poor judgment. Before asking my question, I point out the fact that—as the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) knows, and as the Chief Secretary has mentioned himself—the Government are currently introducing the duty of candour Bill, which will legally require Ministers to answer questions frankly and with any information that people could usefully think they should know. I ask for a third time: how much is Peter Mandelson due to take as part of his pay-off?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister was happy to trot back from China heralding the successes of the visit without having secured the release of Jimmy Lai, and now we see Jimmy facing a 20-year prison sentence—in effect, a life sentence. Does the Minister think that was a price worth paying?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to see the detail of it, but that was a helpful intervention from the former Deputy Prime Minister. I think there is a way forward for us, potentially. I also want to highlight that it was not just this one issue of whether the Prime Minister knew that Mandelson was in touch with a paedophile. We also know what was publicly reported. Before Mandelson was appointed, Epstein was discussing Government business from jail, if we can believe the reporting. What more could we have known? We are Five Eyes partners with the United States. We share the most secret and confidential information with the United States, so what was preventing the Government from approaching the US Department of Justice prior to the public release of these emails and asking whether there was anything in them that we needed to know before we appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador? We could have asked those questions, and I would like the Minister to say whether we did ask them and to give us any response we might have had. We are talking about what has been in the public domain, and the Government could have had that information beforehand.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there are many other questions that we want answered by the Government. That is why we want to pass this Humble Address so that we have access to all the information. We have heard from ISC members and other Select Committee Chairs about how we can do that in a way that protects national security, so the idea that we cannot do so without breaching national security is complete nonsense. I ask Labour Members: what will the public think? How will this look to ordinary members of the public? Labour Members may well put forward technical arguments, and the Government might brief on various reasons why, because of technicalities, they cannot pass this motion and how it is all too difficult, but the public will come away thinking that some Labour MPs—not all of them—are willing to collude and support a Prime Minister who exercised catastrophically poor judgment at the expense of victims of violence against women and girls. It was the stated aim of this Government to tackle that and have it as a key tenet. That will reflect poorly on them, and the public will know exactly what has gone on here: a rescue operation for a flailing Prime Minister who, I think, is on his way out. When Prime Ministers are on their way out, they fight and kick and drag other people along with them. If Labour MPs allow the Prime Minister to do that, they will come to regret it, because once he is gone, he will move on and do new things, and they will still be MPs seeking re-election at the next election, having been tarnished and damaged by the things he did to save his own skin.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Rumours abound that a manuscript amendment will be tabled to bring forward something that Labour Members feel they can vote for. Does the hon. Lady agree that Labour Members should not forget the fact that the Government were willing to try to make them vote for the original amendment?