Nick Thomas-Symonds MP: speeches

Speeches

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister answered that question at Prime Minister’s questions. He was lied to about the depth and extent of the relationship.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way in a moment. Let us be clear: no Government Minister of any political party should have behaved in the way that Peter Mandelson did, and it was absolutely disgraceful. The alleged leaking of crucial documents to help millionaires to profit in the middle of the global crash and lying to contemporaries, the Prime Minister and the public are both shameful and shameless.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and then my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I am someone who rewards effort, so as the right hon. Gentleman has put in such effort, I will give way.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a bit of progress, then I will give way a few more times. Not only has the Cabinet Office referred the evidence about Peter Mandelson’s time as a Minister to the police, but we are taking action going forward, in the Hillsborough law before this House, to introduce a duty of candour for all public servants that will make it an offence to lie to the public. We will make it a criminal offence to do anything but act with openness and integrity when things go wrong. That is the action that this Government are taking to prevent future cover-ups and injustices. It is a statement of intention that we want to enshrine that capacity to speak truth to power. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said, the voices of victims should be at the forefront, not, as in this case, a group of powerful men. We are putting an end to the situation in which powerful people are able to avoid justice.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Let me finish this point; I will take some more interventions in a moment. Peter Mandelson will now account for his actions and conduct. That is why the Cabinet Office has referred this matter to the police. The Metropolitan police has released a statement confirming that it has “received a number of reports into alleged misconduct in public office including a referral from the UK Government.” The statement also confirmed that the Metropolitan police has started a criminal investigation in relation to potential misconduct in public office offences and that it will “continue to assess all relevant information brought to our attention as part of this investigation and won’t be commenting any further at this time.” The House will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on that particular development.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. The public rightly demand the highest standards from those in office and from Ministers. We should be held to the highest standards, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Peter Mandelson fell far, far short of those standards, and his behaviour has been revealed to be appalling. As the Prime Minister has said—

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Let me pick up this point, which I know a number of right hon. and hon. Members have raised. In the first instance, the process will be conducted and led by the Cabinet Secretary, with unimpeachable integrity— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) shouts “cover-up” about the Cabinet Secretary, and he really should consider that remark, I think. Secondly, this will be conducted by Cabinet Office lawyers. The House is asking, fairly, a broader question about scrutiny, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and there is a role, as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said, for Select Committees in how they scrutinise this, as well as existing powers for the ISC in terms of scrutinising this— [ Interruption. ] I am hearing what the House is saying, and I will take that point away.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I will complete my introductory remarks, and then I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman. What Jeffrey Epstein did was unforgivable, and every time his crimes are in the public eye, victims must relive their trauma. His victims are at the forefront of my mind, as I am sure they are for all right hon. and hon. Members in this debate. The Prime Minister has said that anyone with relevant information must come forward and co-operate with investigations, so that Jeffrey Epstein’s victims get the justice that they have been denied for so long. As for Peter Mandelson, his decision to maintain a close relationship with a convicted paedophile, including discussing private Government business, is not just wrong, it is abhorrent.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Let me make some progress, and I might come back to interventions. The Government have tabled amendment (a), so that documents are published unless they prejudice national security or international relations—I know I was asked a specific question about international relations—because of course such documents might contain information about our relationship with our international allies and how we have approached them. It is obviously important for Governments to keep that information confidential, because it is in the national interest. I am also very conscious of another issue: I am definitely not seeking to hide behind the cloak of the Met police investigation, but of course we will also have to bear in mind the fact that documents might prejudice that investigation. That is something that we will continue to speak to the Met about. We will of course do all we can to comply with the motion, as amended, and we will update the House accordingly. I also want to say to the House that, while the process of going through a significant number of documents might take a little time, it is important that the Government start the disclosure process—to the extent we can—today. That is what the Government will do in response to the debate and to the very reasonable questions that are being asked.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I will take one intervention from a Member on the Government Benches, then I will take one from a Member on the Opposition Benches.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some more progress, before giving way a few more times. Members will recall that back in September—in the light of the additional information contained in emails written by Peter Mandelson that were released at the time—the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador with immediate effect. The emails released showed that the nature and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that which was known at the time of his appointment. The issue over which Peter Mandelson was withdrawn from Washington was information not available at the time that the due diligence was done. A due diligence process was conducted by the Cabinet Office, and a security vetting process—they are different—was also carried out. Since entering government, we have already taken action to strengthen the process for making direct appointments for ambassadors specifically, and for direct ministerial appointments more generally.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I completely accept that, Mr Speaker.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  On the second point, I played no personal role in the appointment process, but as the Prime Minister said, the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship was not known at the time of his appointment. As soon as that came to light, the Prime Minister acted decisively and sacked Peter Mandelson.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree; my hon. Friend expresses the anger felt by many across the House.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I hope the House has seen, even over the course of this debate, the constructive approach I have tried to take on the role of the ISC in this process. That is precisely what I have done. I want to turn now to another aspect of this matter, which is the peerage. Another action the Government are determined to take is to strip Peter Mandelson of his title, as the Prime Minister has set out. Frankly, I think people watching this debate will be bemused, because there is no other walk of life in which a person is unsackable unless a law is passed. We will therefore introduce primary legislation. The Government have written to the Chair of the Lords Conduct Committee to ask the Lords to consider what changes are required to modernise the process of the House in order to remove Lords quickly when they have brought either House into disrepute. The Government stand ready to support the House in whatever way is necessary to put any changes into effect. Being in office is a privilege—every day is a privilege. That is why there is anger across this House about Peter Mandelson and his actions. The test for the Government in these circumstances is the action we take to respond. As I think has also come through in this debate, our utmost thoughts are with the victims: the women and girls who suffered at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein. Behind the emails, the photographs and the documents are many victims who were exposed to this network of abuse. They should be our priority in this matter, and I am sure they will be for the rest of this debate.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the existing mechanisms of scrutiny, and I give her great credit for her work. As I have said in response to Opposition Members, I will take that point away.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  As I think I have already said, I will take the point away. My hon. Friend knows from our personal details on a different matter my respect for the Intelligence and Security Committee and its work.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I will take one intervention—

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), then I will take another intervention.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to the former Deputy Prime Minister, then I have to make some progress.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

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

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  May I pay tribute to Dame Karen Pierce? She represents the finest of our foreign service. Governments do make political appointments to these posts; that has happened, and it is a long-standing practice for a small number of posts. The Prime Minister has already said that if he knew then what he knows now, Peter Mandelson would not have been anywhere near the Government.