Nick Thomas-Symonds MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right about that. I think we all know the value of public inquiries and the moment of public justice that they give. What we need to be very careful about is, first, how much they cost and, secondly, the time they take, so that when recommendations do come, they are timely.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  It is a solemn privilege to close this debate, which has been extraordinarily moving. I start by paying tribute to the Backbench Business Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). Whenever I see him, he says that he is the person to ask me the awkward questions—quite rightly. He always does so with great courtesy, and he speaks with great passion on behalf of the infected blood community. As has been recognised across the House, he does remarkable work as chair of the APPG. He has an able and loyal deputy in the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who supports that work and puts a great deal of time into it. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), for the tone of his remarks. I echo what he said about the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who I worked with and faced across the Dispatch Box when I was the shadow; he has continued that work since. I also thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for the constructive tone that she took. I thank the right hon. Members for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), and my hon. Friends the Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), and for Rugby (John Slinger). They all made significant contributions and spoke powerfully on behalf of their constituents. At the outset, I make the general point that many moving individual cases have been raised in this debate, as well as some specific points. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington raised the case of Sean Cavens, on whose behalf he has spoken many times. To be clear, the change that I made in the third set of regulations allows someone to switch from receiving support scheme or periodic payments to a lump sum. I am concerned to hear what he has said is happening to Sean. I say to my hon. Friend and others that they should follow up this debate with details, so that I can come back to them. I would say exactly the same thing to the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield. I was very moved, listening to her talk about her constituent Josie. I remember writing to the hon. Lady about that case, so I would very much like the details of what has happened in that claim process. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East spoke movingly about the Smith family. Their dignity in the face of extraordinary grief after the loss of Colin has been nothing short of inspirational over the years, and my hon. Friend speaks very powerfully for them. I note that some constituents, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, would prefer not to be named, and I completely understand that, but I would be very grateful for the details of their cases. I would like to acknowledge the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge, who spoke about his constituent Susan and her two daughters, one of whom, Louise, is in the Public Gallery. He spoke powerfully in memory of George. I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does for them. It is very meaningful that the family have come along to the debate; I am grateful for their time this afternoon. More broadly, I want to mark all the progress that has been made. As so many right hon. and hon. Members have said, this scandal was decades in the making, and many decades passed before any form of acknowledgement or justice started to be delivered. As has been pointed out, over £2.7 billion of compensation offers have been made, and more than £2.1 billion has been paid in compensation. Members have quite rightly sought to hold me to account today on speed of delivery, and I will come back to that in a moment, but we should acknowledge in this debate those who waited so long, especially those who are no longer with us. We owe it to them to take the time to recognise the hardships that they suffered. We must also recognise the extraordinary resolve of the infected blood community. The topic has been debated many times in this House, and I hope that Members will have seen that I always try to make every effort to be here for the debates. I think it is important that I personally hear what right hon. and hon. Members are saying. Indeed, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) brought forward her amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill in 2023, I supported it, while in opposition. Driving forward this work has been a key priority for the Government. Since I became the Minister responsible for this issue, I have brought three sets of regulations before the House. Most recently, we held a public consultation that asked for feedback on proposed changes to the compensation scheme, and I updated the House in April with the changes that the Government will be putting in place. I will shortly bring before the House a fourth set of regulations to make those legislative changes, and I am very grateful to the shadow Minister for saying that his party will support those regulations. The compensation scheme is rightly the largest that any Government have ever launched. Alongside the £1.4 billion of interim payments, over £2.1 billion has now been paid out, but I totally recognise and hear that there is still a great deal of work to be done. Let me pick up the issue of IBCA’s approach to payments. IBCA is operationally independent, and it is very important that it is, given Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. That said, IBCA uses a test-and-learn approach to delivery. That means that at the start of a process, the numbers are small, but then there will be an exponential increase. That is what happened with the number of infected people who were paid towards the end of 2025. As the House has rightly observed, the target of paying the first affected person before the end of 2025 was met, but the affected numbers are relatively small at the moment because they will go into that exponential phase. As I have said to the House before on many occasions, yes, we have what I call the backstops, which are the bulk of infected people being paid by the end of 2027 and the bulk of affected people being paid by the end of 2029, but those are not targets. I stand ready to assist IBCA to ensure that we can drive forward with delivery as quickly as possible. The reason the numbers of affected people are small is precisely because of the test-and-learn approach, and I will hold IBCA to account on the moment at which the speed of those payments increases. I have been on more than one occasion to IBCA’s office in Newcastle. As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have reflected today, the claims managers and the staff are dedicated and diligent, and are certainly building a system that, I believe, is sympathetic. I will be frank with the House: I am troubled by some of the contributions that have mentioned the level of evidence being required, and I say that for two reasons. First, there is often an ask for evidence of things that happened a long time ago, and secondly, we know from Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry that there was deliberate document destruction. For those two reasons, I have repeatedly said from the Dispatch Box that I expect not just a sympathetic approach to evidence but some assistance and pointers as to where evidence, if required, might be obtained. I hope that when Members write to me about individual cases, they give me specific examples of where there have been issues regarding the level of evidence. I am more than happy to take up that issue. I have set up a new feedback mechanism for the scheme. That was one of the things that I was expected to do, and Sir Brian Langstaff was clear that he expected that to be done. I was not prepared to just create some sort of correspondence-sifting mechanism; I wanted to create a system whereby the concerns raised went to the appropriate level. In some cases that will be IBCA’s board, but in others it will be things that have to be elevated back to the Cabinet Office and to me. I expect to publish the first quarterly summary of issues raised through the mechanism in early July, but I will continue to push forward to ensure that it is working in the way it should and that victims have a voice going forward. I will try and go through the different themes.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  It depends on the nature of the change. For example, on the issue being described as burden of proof, I have already repeatedly mentioned from the Dispatch Box the sympathetic approach that I expect. It depends on the specific issue being raised. In some cases, they will be things that I expect IBCA’s board, rather than me as a Minister, to deal with. The point is that I want the issue raised to go to the appropriate level to ensure that it has an appropriate response. We will see how the mechanism works, and I am sure that my hon. Friend, through the all-party parliamentary group, will start to see people having experience of it. I will be interested to hear that feedback. Unethical research has been raised across the House today. I do not think that any amount of money could ever make up for the experimentation on children that happened as a consequence of this scandal. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire, who represents Treloar’s, will be aware from his constituents of how frankly heinous the situation was. When I became the responsible Minister, I accepted a recommendation—it was one of the first things across my desk—from Sir Robert Francis, who had conducted a review of the scheme. He recommended that there should be an amount of money that does not in any sense reflect the totality of the harm done, but that is there, as an amount within a much larger amount, as a marker of what was particularly heinous in the experimentation. That is the context behind the unethical research awards; they were lower sums than those before the House today, but I accepted the recommendation because I thought it important to have that in the scheme. The amounts that we see are not the totality of the settlement. The right hon. Member for New Forest East asked about the differences between the compensation awarded to living and deceased infected people. I recognise that financial loss awards may be lower for awards to estates— I think that was his point—but that is because the future financial losses for estate claims are paid to the infected person’s dependants rather than the estate. A point was made about psychiatric disorders. The Government have certainly been looking at how to make the severe health condition award for psychiatric disorders more accessible, with a less intrusive ask for evidence. We examined using types of evidence—these are such difficult issues—such as suicide to qualify for the award, but in my view imposing a retraumatising requirement would place an unconscionable burden on families who have already been through decades of mental suffering. When designing any compensation scheme, the Government have to ensure that no mechanism or award criterion inadvertently creates a risk to potentially vulnerable people. Instead, the new special category mechanism of a severe health condition award allows applicants to access more compensation for mental health problems that they have experienced, in excess of the core route—without, I repeat, an unreasonable ask for evidence. A really important point was raised about the recognition of carers. The care award is provided to a person making a claim as an infected person or as the representative of a deceased infected person’s estate. A living infected person claiming compensation can, however, instruct IBCA to pay all or some of the award to an eligible affected person who provided them with care. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked about criminal prosecutions. The House will realise that it is not for me as a Minister, or indeed for any other Minister, to make prosecutorial decisions—that is rightly independent of Government and is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service—but I thought that the House would welcome an update. Given the nationwide scope of the independent infected blood inquiry, and in the absence of a clear lead police force, the National Police Chiefs’ Council has engaged experienced senior investigators to conduct a review of the available evidence. They have been assessing extensive information provided by the inquiry, which has been supporting the investigation fully, and legal advice to look at next steps. In March, I wrote to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to reaffirm my and the Government’s commitment to make any and all relevant information around the infected blood inquiry available to the prosecuting authorities, where requested, so that an informed decision could be based on the evidence. In May, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire may already be aware, the National Police Chiefs’ Council published a statement that its initial review, which focused on events at Treloar’s, did not provide sufficient information for a viable criminal investigation. However, terms of reference are now being developed for a further review of the remaining chapters. Decisions on that investigation and the timeframe are obviously for the NPCC, but the House should be assured that I stand ready to assist in providing evidence in any way possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli asked about the eligibility of affected estates. It is right that following the inquiry’s additional report, we have amended the scheme so that the estate of a deceased affected person is now eligible to claim compensation where an affected person passed away between 21 May 2024 and 31 March 2031. The recommendation from Sir Brian Langstaff was a cut-off of 31 December 2029, but we have actually extended that a couple of years further. The issue of interferon was raised by a number of Members. The Government have accepted the inquiry’s recommendation to introduce a new higher level award for infected people who were treated with interferon. The new level 2b core compensation award will provide more financial loss and care compensation for the full two years after treatment and will be available to anyone treated with interferon who would otherwise be receiving a level 2 award. I did not recognise the point made by the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield about a 12-week minimum, but when I look at the detail of the case, I can look into that. The point being made to me was twofold. The first point about evidence and transparency was made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. A technical expert group gives advice to Government. One of the things I have said is that we need transparency on its members, its minutes and its evidence, and my attitude is that we should publish it so that it is out there and people can see it. The second point about the long-term impact was raised by a couple of Members. If someone has experienced long-term impacts following interferon treatment that have impacted on their ability to work or their need for care, they may be eligible for additional compensation through the special category mechanism severe health condition award. That ensures that those with long-term side effects receive additional financial support. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who is no longer in her place, raised a point about inheritance tax and secondary transfers. That is a matter that I hope I have rectified and that was announced in the Budget last year, but I will certainly follow up with her on the specific case that she raised. A number of Members mentioned the duty of candour. The House should be in no doubt about my commitment to the Hillsborough law and the duty of candour. I believe that we are well over 90% of the way there. As the House has been told in previous updates, the outstanding issue on the Hillsborough law is how exactly we strike that balance between a duty of candour and the work of the security and intelligence services, but I am very confident that we can resolve that satisfactorily. I look forward to driving forward the work on the Hillsborough law, which will be a landmark moment in terms of the legal duty that we are talking about in this House. When we think of so many of the scandals that have come before us, even in my 11 years as a Member of Parliament, they all have a similarity. Sir Brian Langstaff said in his inquiry that it was not really about specific people who were involved in a conspiracy—if that was the case, we could identify them and they could be prosecuted. He said it was about a culture of institutional defensiveness—that, actually, what people do when terrible things happen is to protect either their own reputation or the reputation of the institution in which they serve. We will have a landmark moment when that law goes on the statute book, but beyond that there will be a need to drive cultural change to ensure that terrible scandals such as this do not happen in the future. This compensation scheme exists because it is absolutely the right thing to do, but it exists because of the way that campaigners over many, many years continued in the face of state denial to drive this forward because of their suffering and that of their families. We cannot in this House change the past, but we certainly can mark it and remember it. It was a solemn privilege for me to attend the service of remembrance organised by the Infected Blood Memorial Committee in St Paul’s cathedral last month. It was designed by the community, for the community, and it was a profoundly moving moment, and I was privileged to speak to the members of the committee, very ably chaired by Clive Smith. They are continuing their important work towards a national memorial, and I know they take a very open approach to seeking the community’s views at every opportunity. For me, that service of remembrance underscored the importance of getting this right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge pointed out, it is absolutely crucial to get the compensation scheme right, but it is one of a number of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. We owe it collectively as a House to get that right for future generations, to ensure that nothing like this can happen again. I believe that is the very least we can do.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Officials leading the process will have heard the exchange—and this exchange—in relation to that specific point about Ian Collard. As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set out in his statement on Monday, the documents with the Metropolitan police fall into several categories: internal correspondence relating to Peter Mandelson, and documents in relation to conflict of interest and national security vetting. I appreciate the point that my right hon. Friend makes and officials will have heard the exchange between her and me.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is just that if he looks at the wording of the Humble Address, he will see that it lists a series of classes of documents, and then it says, “except papers”—those that were referred to the ISC. That is our compliance with the motion. Let me turn back to the process, which, as I said, was undertaken by officials. They sought returns from all Government Departments, including material, as has been referred to, on non-corporate communication channels. There were multiple rounds of discovery to ensure that searches returned material relevant to the full scope of the motion. Some documents were assessed as likely prejudicial to national security or international relations—the point I was just making—and, as I committed to the House in February, they were then referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Due to the wide scope of the motion and the significant volume of material that needed to be located and reviewed, the first publication, on 11 March, was focused on the parts of the motion that were of most urgent interest to the House: Peter Mandelson’s appointment, his withdrawal and the severance. The second tranche, which was published on Monday, contains material relevant to the parts of the motion that cover communications and documents concerning Peter Mandelson’s appointment and vetting, and messages between Peter Mandelson and Ministers, special advisers and senior civil servants in the months prior to and throughout his tenure as ambassador. All documents held by the Government have now been disclosed, save those that are being withheld on the request of the Metropolitan police.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  To the right hon. Gentleman’s direct question, I have not been part of the process or been given precise dates for when the Metropolitan police said what. However, I will say this: the documents with the Metropolitan police have been viewed by the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), so within the confines of not wishing to undermine the ongoing investigation we have tried to be as transparent as we can be with Parliament at this stage. In addition, the summary document of the vetting has been shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee, so to the extent that we have been able to share documents, we have. The request in this debate from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury, will no doubt have been heard as well. Let me turn to the issue of redactions, which I started to develop in earlier answers to interventions. I will not repeat what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said on Monday, nor the methodological note that is available for right hon. and hon. Members to look at, but I want to clarify some issues so that there is no doubt about the process that was followed. As I have said, no material was redacted on grounds of prejudice to national security or international relations without the ISC’s approval. The redactions agreed with the ISC are all triple-asterisked throughout the publication. When you see the three asterisks, that material was agreed with the ISC to be redacted. On my point about precedent in the earlier exchange with the right hon. Member for New Forest East, the redactions were limited to the names of junior officials, contact details such as telephone numbers and email addresses, the personal or commercially sensitive data of third parties not relevant to the motion, and some cases where there was legal professional privilege. That is in line with the process that has been followed by successive Administrations in relation to Humble Address motions. Those redactions are clearly labelled in the publication. To reconfirm, no Government Minister or special adviser has determined any of the redactions; that was done by the official-led process. I echo the comments made by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister on Monday in thanking the Chair of the PACAC, the hon. Member for North Dorset, who is not in his place, for reviewing our approach to the third-party redactions and the material withheld, so as not to prejudice the ongoing police investigations and to ensure that we are being transparent with Parliament, as we should be. Let me turn to the specific point about the Metropolitan police. Everyone across the House will appreciate the need not to prejudice the investigation, and will understand that I am unable to answer questions about certain documents that have been withheld. They include questions to Peter Mandelson by the Prime Minister’s then chief of staff and Peter Mandelson’s responses. The remaining documents, as I said a moment or two ago, fall broadly into the following categories: national security vetting material, conflict of interest process material and relevant internal correspondence with Peter Mandelson. Such information will be published in due course, either at the conclusion of the investigation, or at a point, if there were one, at which publication would no longer be prejudicial to the police investigation. On 4 February, the House made its will clear.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  It is, quite rightly, for the police and not for Ministers to determine the way in which they want their investigation to proceed and to identify documents that they feel are reasonable lines of inquiry. However, to give the House reassurance, even that class of documents was viewed by the Chair of PACAC—obviously, under particular controlled circumstances —because we wanted for Parliament the level of transparency that we could provide at that stage, despite the ongoing investigation. The Government have discharged their duty to the House in complying with the Humble Address motion, aside from that small amount of information that will be subsequently published in a final tranche. As Members will have seen, Monday’s publication complies with the spirit and the letter of the motion, as well as being one of the largest ever publications laid in this House. Members have had some time to consider the document—certainly, since Monday—and I am grateful to the Leader of the House for making further time to debate the issue today. I know that throughout the course of the debate, Members will be conscious of not prejudicing the ongoing criminal investigation. I am grateful to the House for understanding the position the Government have taken and my position on answering questions on that. I look forward to the debate before the House. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will close and respond to points made during the debate. I commend the motion to the—

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  That of course strays into the conflict of interests class of documents, which is still one of the classes that is with the Metropolitan police. I conclude by saying again that it is very important that the House has this debate today. From the debate in February to today, I have certainly taken my duties, and indeed the Government’s duties, to the House very seriously, as has my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister—I think today is his eleventh appearance in the House on this matter. He will, of course, close the debate and answer any further questions. I commend the motion to the House.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  On Palantir, I refer my hon. Friend to the methodology statement at the start of each of the three volumes, where it is made absolutely clear that there is a recognition that Palantir is a matter of interest to the House; indeed, there are references to Palantir within the documents. As I am sure the House will understand, I will not speculate on the contents of the documents that remain with the Metropolitan police, but certainly I invite everyone to look at the references to Palantir in the tranche of documents before the House—indeed, the public can do so as well.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for his generous comments. On that particular issue, I would be grateful if he wrote to me with the very specific details. I would be more than happy to see whether the claim is eligible. In an earlier question, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) asked about the potential for criminal prosecutions relating to this matter. Of course, prosecutions are a matter for the independent Crown Prosecution Service, but I have made it absolutely clear that the Government stand ready to provide any evidence required by the authorities.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous tribute. I have built on the work that he did as a Minister, and I think that the consensus between us, when I was in opposition and now as I am in government, has helped the victims and speeded up the process. I am very grateful for all the work that he did. His second point was very well made. We have to look at the public inquiries landscape. We all recognise that public inquiries provide a real public sense of justice when people have suffered either from a scandal or, frankly, from a cover-up by the state, but we want public inquiries to provide value for money for the taxpayer and to report in a timely fashion. We also need them to make relevant, timely policy recommendations. I am determined to look at that.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Whether it is in relation to the co-infected, to whom my hon. Friend so movingly refers, or other people who are both infected and affected by this scandal, the compensation scheme seeks to recognise everything—all the harms that have happened to them and how they have suffered. I will just say, though, that this was always meant to be a tariff-based scheme—it is meant to produce broad justice—and part of the reason for that is to try to prevent those highly individualised searches for evidence which, frankly, with this distance of time, would simply not be possible.

• 5 Mar 2026 · EU: Mutual Interests · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister has not read the common understanding and the mechanism that is set out. There is an independent arbitration panel, with the role of the European Court of Justice restricted to the interpretation of EU law but not binding on the overall decision of the panel. He ought to read the detail in the agreement. We were talking about history earlier. My best piece of advice to him is to do his research before he asks his questions.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in one moment. The Government should rightly be tested and questioned by this House, but the action that is taken by this Government is crucial now. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Secretary to review all available information regarding Peter Mandelson’s contacts with Jeffrey Epstein during his period as a Minister and to report back as a matter of urgency. After an initial review of some documents, the Cabinet Secretary made the decision to refer the matter to the police, with the Prime Minister’s support. I should say that the Government stand ready to provide any support that the police require as part of their investigation. On that note, I will give way to the Father of the House.

• 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

  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 beg to move amendment (a), at the end to add “except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations.” Members will be aware that the Government came to the House on Monday for an update following the release of 3 million pages of documents by the United States Department of Justice regarding Jeffrey Epstein. As the Government said on Monday, and as I reiterate now, Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted paedophile and a despicable individual who revelled in abusing the vulnerable and destroyed the lives of countless women and girls.

• 17 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  I spoke to both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland only this morning to discuss the arrangements around Erasmus+ and the other announcements I have made on electricity. I can assure the hon. Lady, as I am also responsible for the Windsor framework, that it is a top priority for me. It is a top priority as well for the Prime Minister, who has a personal interest in Northern Ireland having been the human rights adviser to the Policing Board. With regard to barriers to trade that the hon. Lady was referring to on the Irish sea, it is precisely pushing forward and getting the SPS deal implemented quickly that will allow us to lower those barriers, which is what I am determined to do.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for the tone of her comments. On her final point, that number is just the number of registrations, not the totality of the number of victims. On the point that she raises, I entirely share her concern. As I said when I gave evidence to the inquiry in May, the test that I always have at the forefront of my mind when making changes is about not causing additional undue delay to the payment of compensation. The hon. Lady asked me about 2029; that is a backstop, not a target date. I said that to the inquiry in May as well. The target is to get the payments out as quickly as possible. As I said in response to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), the test-and-learn approach was always taken because we felt—and IBCA felt—that that would ultimately be the way to get the money out to the largest number of people as quickly as possible. I think we are now in an exponential phase where the number of payments is going up quickly. The hon. Lady is entirely right to draw attention to the number of people who have died before actually securing justice. That is again a reason why I have been pushing for payments to be made as quickly as possible. Finally, the special category mechanism is one of the seven issues mentioned in the consultation. I know this has been asked before, but I would urge her and her constituents to respond to that.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). First, I want to reinforce, not just as a Minister, but as a parliamentarian, the Government’s deep regret about the collapse of the criminal case concerning the two individuals charged under the Official Secrets Act 1911. Everyone in the Government was hoping that the trial would go ahead and planning on the basis that it would. As a reminder, following the arrests of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry in March 2023 as part of a counter-espionage operation, counter-terrorism police requested that the deputy National Security Adviser act as a witness in the case. [ Interruption. ] Let me go through this, because it is important to the challenges made by the hon. Gentleman. The DNSA made it clear that he would provide evidence on the basis of the Government’s position at the time of the offences, and that is crucial to the judgment that has been made in this case. The first statement was drafted—

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress, and then I will give way to the shadow Home Secretary. The first statement was drafted between August and December 2023. During that time, Counter Terrorism Policing was updated on progress, including the information that the deputy National Security Adviser would not be able to call China an enemy, as that was not the position of the Government at the time of the offences.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  I took interventions from the shadow Home Secretary, and I must now make some progress. Before finalising his statement in December 2023, the deputy National Security Adviser sighted the then National Security Adviser and the then Cabinet Office permanent secretary. On 18 December—this was all under the previous Government—the permanent secretary came back with three comments for the DNSA to consider. The DNSA then finalised the statement, and his private office sent a final version of the draft to the then Prime Minister through the No. 10 private office and No. 10 special advisers. Once the statements were submitted they were not shared, and in April 2024, formal charges were laid. That was the position under the previous Government. Two supplementary witness statements from the DNSA were submitted in February and August 2025, following requests from Counter Terrorism Policing for further detail on the nature and extent of the threat to the UK from China. For the second statement, CTP specifically asked the DNSA to comment on whether China as a state, during the period from 31 December 2021 to 3 February 2023, posed an active threat; and whether that remained the case. For the third statement, CTP requested that the DNSA provide further points of detail regarding the UK Government’s assessment of the nature and extent of the threat, with examples. The DNSA faithfully and with full integrity—I noted that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster implied that somehow he was not compliant with part 35 of the civil procedure rules—set out the various threats posed by the Chinese state in line with the UK Government’s position at the material time, in order to try to support a successful prosecution. We then come, obviously, to the meeting on 1 September to which the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referred, and with which I shall deal in a moment. I was fascinated by the opening speech of the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in which he talked of the “clarity” of the last Government’s position. “The government’s approach to China is guided by three pillars: strengthening our national security protections, aligning and cooperating with our partners, and engaging where it is consistent with our interest.” Who said that? The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did in 2023, and here he is now trying to talk about the clarity of the position in 2023.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The manifesto was clear that the reform would be staged, and that this would be the immediate first step. The Government remain in favour of a House of Lords that is more representative of the nations and regions, and this is the first step. As the Leader of the House of Lords announced, a Select Committee will then look at retirement age, and indeed at participation. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) made the point, which I repeated, that this is not a personal issue but an issue of principle. I know the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), welcomes the Bill as a first step, and she also spoke about the appointment process. Indeed, over recent months the Government have ensured that when people are selected for a place in the House of Lords there is now an explanation or citation. We always had a citation when people were awarded honours, but we did not have one for those nominated for a place in the House of Lords. That has now been changed. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) set out powerfully that Lords amendment 1, which concerns the abolition of hereditary by-elections, has been put forward time and again by Lord Grocott, and on every single occasion it was blocked by the Conservatives. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), a regular sparring partner of mine, accused me of being a bit unfair to the Conservatives in the 20th century. Life peerages were of course introduced in the late 1950s, but it is certainly the case that the Conservatives have blocked every opportunity to abolish the hereditary principle, and that is exactly what they are doing again. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) made a powerful speech about the central purpose of the Bill and the Government’s position on the amendments. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire made his characteristic contribution to the debate, and I would agree with the point he made about filibustering in the other place on this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) made well the point that even after this change, the Conservatives will still be the largest single party in the House of Lords. I then come to the speech by the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) who seemed, I think, to be simultaneously arguing for maintaining the hereditary peers and for radical reform. When he talked about a parliamentarian with the “attention span” of a TikTok video, I thought he meant the shadow Justice Secretary for a minute. We have heard the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) make a comparison with North Korea, but the hon. Member for Windsor made a comparison with Iran. This Bill is quintessentially British. It is about British democracy. It is about putting an argument to the electorate last July, and then putting that into practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) made the powerful case that this is about principle, and about there not being a series of places in our legislature that are reserved for people by accident of birth. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), who I am sure the whole House will wish well for the Great North Run, made a powerful case for the abolition of the hereditary principle and the position of the Bill. I also say a real “thank you” to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who has made a powerful case for change throughout every stage of the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons. This has been a perfectly reasonable debate—