UK PARLIAMENT · SITTING

Alex Burghart

MP for Brentwood and Ongar · Conservative · United Kingdom

IN THEIR OWN WORDS

“As this is the Secretary of State’s first Northern Ireland questions, may I welcome him to his place? Victims and survivors of the troubles will, as the hon.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

“This is for context. The document revealed that the Secretary of State was told by the police, “it is possible that dissident republicans have already accessed the firearms in the Garvaghy Road area, and it is possible that in the event of police removing protesters, firearms may be used to attack police.” It would not interfere with the…”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State twice refused to answer questions about documents referred to in judicial review proceedings in the High Court in Belfast that refer to the ongoing existence of the IRA.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

“With all due respect, I was not asking the Secretary of State to comment on the case; I know that he cannot. I was asking him to tell us what the Government’s considered opinion is on whether the IRA is still active. That is important, because one of the documents produced on Monday revealed—”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

“While I have the opportunity, I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We disagreed on many things, but he always conducted himself with great dignity and great respect, and I am grateful to him for the briefings that he gave me while we were opposite numbers.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

“The right hon. Gentleman says no from a sedentary position, but that is not the case. We have received legal advice that “essential” is no bar at all. For the reasons I have already set out, it will be very easily stepped over, whereas “new and compelling”, as we know from the overseas operations Act, is a more significant legal test.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

The complete record

2,601 lines on record for Alex Burghart, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 6 of 10.

This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.

“Yesterday, in the light of the new China spy case, I asked the Security Minister to place China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. He told us that FIRS is “a relatively new tool”, and that the Government “are seeking to ensure that we can derive the maximum operational capability from it.” —[ Official Report , 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 817.] That is wonderful Whitehall language, but will he please tell us what it means?”
House of Commons5 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Well, it is not very clear, because FIRS is three years old. This morning, I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who established FIRS. When he was establishing it, MI5 told him that it was essential for understanding the operation of the Chinese state in the UK. The enhanced tier would impose mandatory registration and transparency requirements on individuals and organisations in the UK working with Chinese entities. I think most people in this House would now agree that that is entirely necessary. It is there to help our security services protect our country. Please will the Security Minister give us a date by which he will come back to this House to tell us definitively whether he will put China on the enhanced tier, and to set out his explanation?”
House of Commons5 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to return to this subject. It is very clear that the Government do not wish to have an investigation into what happened at the meeting between Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister and Palantir, and everything that occurred between that meeting and the direct award given to Palantir later in the year. This is clearly a possible conflict of interest. Given that the Government do not wish to investigate the matter, what options are at the disposal of the House to force such an investigation?”
House of Commons5 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister said that China presents a series of threats, but during the last spy scandal the Government refused to say the crucial words—that China posed a risk to our national security—and they would not publicly accept that China was opposed or hostile to the interests of the United Kingdom. Will he now accept that that position is no longer tenable? The Minister said that if there is proven evidence of attempts by China to interfere with UK sovereign affairs, the Government will impose severe consequences and hold all actors involved to account. We sincerely hope that is true, but it was not true last time, so here we are again. Unless the Government finally step up, we will be back here time and again.”
House of Commons4 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given that that is being reported in the press, will the Minister confirm whether that is true? Will the Minister also give a cast-iron guarantee to the House that the Government will do everything in their power to prevent this case from collapsing? We have seen this show before. Will he promise that, unlike last time, the Chinese ambassador will be summoned by Ministers and told that aggressive interference in our country and its democracy will no longer be tolerated? Mr Speaker, I should say how right you were to deny that ambassador access to this House. Will the Minister now commit to placing China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?”
House of Commons4 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We in the House watched as those things happened; the Chinese state watched, too, and saw that it could act with impunity. The Minister said that there is no trade-off between our economic interests and our democratic and national security interests, but I am afraid that is exactly what has happened. I understand that the Minister will be unable to say much about the new case, but we all know what we are dealing with here, so I hope he will be clear about the Government’s response. I hope that he will talk a little bit about whether this case touches on Members of the House, because while we have been in the Chamber the BBC and The Guardian have reported that one of those arrested is the spouse of a sitting Labour MP and that another is the spouse of a former Labour MP.”
House of Commons4 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I appreciate the speed with which he has come to the House today. Here we are again: another year, another Chinese spy scandal, and the backdrop is the Government’s failed policy of appeasement. The Government must surely be coming to the realisation that unless the United Kingdom stands up to these threats, our country will continue to be treated with disdain. We watched how the Government allowed the Chinese spy case involving Members of this House to collapse. We watched as—despite the interference in our democracy—the Government approved the Chinese mega-embassy in London, and we watched as the Prime Minister went to Beijing, cap in hand, begging for trade deals to mitigate the costs of his own disastrous economic policy.”
House of Commons4 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, this is the second occasion in only a few weeks when the Government have had to be brought here by Opposition parties under the terms of a Humble Address to disclose information that they quite obviously could have disclosed without the need for such an Address in the first place. I acknowledge the humility with which the Minister has approached the debate, but the Government as a whole could have been much more proactive on this issue right from the start. I also appreciate the humble way in which the Minister came to the House and reminded us that he had been right all along.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on securing this debate. I should say at the outset that the Conservatives support the motion. The truth is that the people who helped Jeffrey Epstein by supplying him with contacts and information were the people who enabled him to become powerful. Those people effectively enabled him to build his net of influence, his net of abuse. That network of power, in turn, enabled him to abuse more and more people, so it is quite right that this House is enabled to scrutinise what went on and how it went on. I listened to the Minister’s remarks. I appreciate the way that he has approached this debate and the way that the Government will constructively co-operate with the terms of the Humble Address.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is reported that Peter Mandelson first met Epstein in the summer of 2001; Mountbatten-Windsor had, I believe, first met Epstein in 1999. Shortly after Mandelson’s first meeting in October 2001, Mandelson was appointed as trade envoy.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Indeed, if it is the case, as reported in the press, that very senior members of the royal family expressed concerns about the appointment of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor in 2001, one can feel only enormous sympathy with them over what has subsequently come to light. The revelations surrounding the relationship between Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Jeffrey Epstein, like those surrounding the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, and the arrest of both men on suspicion of misconduct in public office make it right that questions are asked and information is brought before the House. If one looks back to 2001, it is possible to identify the hand of Epstein in Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s appointment.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Kingston and Surbiton is a lover of history, so I must gently take issue with his claim that this is the first global political scandal. I think of the Dreyfus affair, the XYZ affair and the Panama scandals—there have been many—but this is, to take his substantive point, a global political scandal. I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that we can only be, as a general point, supportive of the royal family’s role in promoting our country. The people who have witnessed the best of the royal family using their awesome soft power to support what we do best can only be in awe of the vast commitment they make to public service and the life of the country.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Very humble. The leader of the Liberal Democrats referred to this as the first global political scandal. Indeed, it is a global political scandal whose tendrils have reached into the operation of many Governments across the west and the east. The fact that our allies in Poland have launched an intelligence investigation into Epstein’s links with Russia and that in the published Epstein papers it is clear that Jeffrey Epstein was supplying people at the very top end of Putin’s regime with sensitive information about the American leadership show that this is an international scandal and one in which our Government and our security services must play their part in uncovering things. However, I know that the right hon.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Well, Hansard will show it—it may be that the numbers were jumbled up in the Minister’s head. In the summer of 2001, Mandelson met Epstein for the first time; in October 2001, Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as trade envoy. It is possible that Mandelson influenced that. As I said, Mountbatten-Windsor had met Epstein for the first time in 1999, so he was already an associate of Epstein. I am glad to have sorted that out—I can go through it again, but I am sure the Minister will be able to read about it tomorrow.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If it was under his influence that Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as trade envoy, it would be useful to see what the Prime Minister knew when that appointment was made.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Very much so. As I say, it would have been better if the Government had been proactive on this and had not had to be brought to the House by Opposition parties in order to release the information. I am very glad, though, that the Liberal Democrats have learned from the Conservatives’ Humble Address a few weeks ago. It is always good that once the Conservatives have designed a bandwagon, got it up and running and shown that it can move at high speed, the Liberal Democrats scramble up and get on board—better late than never. If we go through the sequencing very carefully, we can see that it is possible that there was influence from Epstein, who, we must acknowledge, had not been arrested or convicted in 2001, although there were already rumours and reports about him, and who was, in any case, a highly influential foreign businessman.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“375.] There is a means that was specifically debated during the original Humble Address that enabled Members of this House—that is, the ISC—to be given this information regardless of the police investigation.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said, I think it would assist the House if the Government could explain why the Met police has asked that that item is held back. It would also be helpful if the Government could confirm that there is no bar to them handing that document over to the Intelligence and Security Committee—a point on which Mr Speaker has been very clear. On 4 February, Mr Speaker said: “the Metropolitan police have no jurisdiction over what this House may wish to do. It will be a matter of whether or not the Government provide the information. I want to let Members know that the police cannot dictate to this House.” —[ Official Report , 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I say that not because of what the Minister has said today so much as what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said yesterday, when, in the context of the Conservatives’ Humble Address, he said: “I can confirm that those documents will be made available, subject, I am afraid, to the exclusion of one particular item, in which No. 10 asked Peter Mandelson a number of questions. The Met police have asked that to be held back, subject to their investigations…That item will therefore have to be published at a later date, but the documents that are not subject to the Met police investigation will be published very shortly.” —[ Official Report , 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 44.] As the hon.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Ah, 2000. Well, I agree with the hon. Lady—that is an interesting point. If one looks at the precise wording of the Liberal Democrats’ Humble Address, however, I am not sure that something like that falls within its context. She may wish to table an amendment to her own party’s motion in order to get at that. Transparency is essential in all this. That is why the Conservatives very much hope that the Government will give us transparency quickly. I turn to the point made by the Father of the House: there is a danger that the Government will use the police process as a means of not disclosing certain information.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will make one additional point on this score. While we do very much support the Humble Address being debated today, I ask the Government to be clear that nothing in it—nothing at all—will slow down the process of delivering on the original Humble Address. While there is historic and contemporary interest in what happened in 2001, what this Government did in choosing to appoint Peter Mandelson, despite the information they had at their disposal, is of paramount importance. They must come clean, and come clean quickly. As Buckingham Palace said the other day, no one is above the law.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I asked the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office to confirm that the Cabinet Secretary, whoever that turned out to be, would investigate what looks like a clear case of conflict of interest, and he agreed to write to me. I still have not received any reply, despite the fact that I brought it up again at the Dispatch Box at the start of this week and was assured that I would receive a response. I just do not think this is good enough. It is very important that the Opposition can hold the Government to account in a meaningful way. To the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), I think it is extremely important that the Government should be seen to be willingly providing information, rather than having to be pushed every step of the way to do the right thing.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Very much so. I know that certain hon. Members across the House will be aware of just how bad it will look if the Government do not provide information as swiftly as possible. I will give an example of where that is not happening. When we debated the original Humble Address—nearly two weeks ago now—I raised the fact that the Prime Minister had an unrecorded meeting with Palantir in Washington in February last year. He was accompanied on that visit, which did not appear in his register of meetings, by Peter Mandelson. Palantir was a client of the company in which Peter Mandelson held a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir subsequently received by direct award a very substantial contract from Government worth about £240 million. When I raised this in the House, there was concern on both sides—it was a cross-party issue.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Cabinet Office review into Labour Together and APCO Worldwide.”
House of Commons23 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister now accept that that appointment was wrong? It must also be the case that very many people took money from Labour Together: the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister—the list goes on. An organisation set up to conceal the source of its donations from the public and from the Labour party—is it not time for an investigation into Labour Together?”
House of Commons23 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The referral to the independent adviser, which the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has just announced, is the right thing to do, but it should have been done immediately. This should not have been dealt with internally in the Cabinet Office, where the Minister in question is the Minister with responsibility for inquiries and whistleblowing—you couldn’t make this stuff up! I must ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister why the Minister has not been suspended while the investigation is going on. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister refers to the work of the propriety and ethics team. We must also ask about the current membership of that team, because it is known that a political appointment was made to a civil service role of a woman who was previously an employee of Labour Together.”
House of Commons23 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister has claimed that the agency acted beyond its brief, but in the past few days an email from the agency to the Minister has been published, showing that he was shown that a “human intelligence investigation” into the journalists would take place. That investigation included details of one journalist’s Jewish faith and made claims about his ideological upbringing and personal relationships. The report was then circulated to key members of the Labour party and to GCHQ, who swiftly said that there was no case to answer. This looks to all intents and purposes like a deliberate attempt to smear and intimidate journalists whose only “crime” had been to report that Labour Together had broken electoral law. As of today, it is very difficult to see how the Minister’s position is tenable.”
House of Commons23 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. The details of this story are quite extraordinary, even by the standards of this Government. While he was the director of the think-tank Labour Together, the now Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), paid a PR agency to investigate the “backgrounds and motivations” of British journalists who had written about Labour Together’s breaches of electoral law, of which there were many—more than 20, the most famous being a failure to declare £730,000-worth of donations. The agency produced a report that included an allegation that the journalists in question had relied on Russian hacking. Needless to say, those reports were entirely spurious.”
House of Commons23 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to make a statement on the Government’s response to the Humble Address agreed by this House on 4 February 2026, including on progress made, timescales for compliance and the Government’s approach to any material it proposes to withhold or delay.”
House of Commons12 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) about the Palantir contract. He has not yet done so. Please will he confirm that he will this week? Lastly, and separately, will the Minister commit to publishing all documentation relating to the nomination of Matthew Doyle as a peer? That is now a matter of acute public interest. [Interruption.] I will sit down, Mr Speaker. The Minister will appreciate that confidence in this Government’s integrity is very low. I hope he will comply in full.”
House of Commons12 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Secondly, where the Government propose to release material to the Intelligence and Security Committee rather than directly to the House, will they provide public updates to the House that this has been done? Thirdly, in respect of documents withheld at the request of the Metropolitan police, will the Government tell us the precise legal mechanism being relied on, and will they commit to publish those documents in full when the police no longer request them to be withheld? Fourthly, will Ministers publish a Keeling schedule-style register of withheld or delayed documents, setting out the category, the reason for non-disclosure and the expected release date for each? There are strong precedents for this. Fifthly, at the Dispatch Box last week, the Minister told me he would write to me and my right hon.”
House of Commons12 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For the avoidance of doubt, were that to happen, the Government would have to return to this House for another vote. Last week, the Prime Minister told us that the process would have integrity because it was being led by the Cabinet Secretary, and that any criticism or denigration of the Cabinet Secretary would not be right. This week, the political forces in No. 10 have been briefing that Sir Chris Wormald is to be replaced—what a turnaround! Will the Minister reassure the House that any change in the Cabinet Secretary will not delay disclosure or publication of the documents that the House has required? I have several further questions that I will put quickly to the Minister. First, have the Government completed their scoping exercise, and if not, by when do they intend to do so?”
House of Commons12 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you for granting this urgent question, without which hon. Members would not have had a chance to question Ministers before recess. Obviously, the House will rise for recess having received very little in the way of information, so it is very important that we hear from the Minister today so that we can try to have some confidence in the process. Simply put, the purpose of our question today is to try to elicit from the Government a commitment to give the House a timetable, and to confirm—as I think the Minister may have done—that they intend to comply fully with the language in the Humble Address. I say that because press briefings from Government sources this week have suggested that the Government might try to reinterpret the address in some way.”
House of Commons12 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Over the past 10 days we have seen a number of revelations about the procurement of services and goods and the provision of sensitive information during Peter Mandelson’s time as a Government Minister and as an ambassador in Washington. Given that Mandelson was, for two years, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, can the Minister assure the House that his Department will comb its records to identify any possible wrongdoing?”
House of Commons11 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am very grateful to the Minister for that direct response. Will he also commit to return to this House before Easter to update Members on the work that his Department has done and what it has found?”
House of Commons11 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It seems that the more this thread is pulled on, the more that network unravels, and the more shameful the whole episode appears. Generally, three main things must concern this House. The first is the now-emerging conduct of Peter Mandelson when he was a member of the previous Labour Administration between 2009 and 2010. I understand that that is now subject to a police investigation, and it is good to see that the Government are co-operating fully with that investigation. I am sure that, when the police have finished their inquiries, there will be future opportunities for us to discuss the matter in this House. The second issue, of similar import, is the judgment of the Prime Minister in appointing Peter Mandelson to our most senior diplomatic role.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing time for this Opposition day debate on presenting an Humble Address. I think the whole House has been shocked and disturbed by the revelations that have emerged once again over the past few days. Peter Mandelson, it seems, helped Jeffrey Epstein and his associates to make money. That money was used to run Mr Epstein’s paedophilic prostitution ring. Those who broke the law to give that information helped to make him rich and powerful, and they share in some of the responsibility for the crimes that were committed, because they gave him the power that he abused. No doubt for some of those involved, this was just a heady game of who had the best contacts and who could make the most money, played by a small set of men who took their thrill from existing outside the rules.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s Ambassador to the United States of America, including but not confined to the Cabinet Office due diligence which was passed to Number 10, the Conflict of Interest Form Lord Mandelson provided to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), material the FCDO and the Cabinet Office provided to UK Security Vetting about Lord Mandelson’s interests in relation to Global Counsel, including his work in relation to Russia and China, and his links to Jeffrey Epstein, papers for, and minutes of, meetings relating to the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, electronic communications between the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff and Lord Mandelson, and between ministers and Lord Mandelson, in the six months prior to his appointment, minutes of meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers in the six months prior to his appointment, all information on Lord Mandelson provided to the Prime Minister prior to his assurance to this House on 10 September 2025 that ‘full due process was followed during this appointment’, electronic communications and minutes of all meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers, Government officials and special advisers during his time as Ambassador, and the details of any payments made to Lord Mandelson on his departure as Ambassador and from the Civil Service.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am glad that it is not my problem, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend is right: the appointment of this man was absolutely the Prime Minister’s responsibility. Today we are trying to dig into exactly what the Prime Minister knew, whether any information was kept from him, and, if so, who kept it from him.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point—one that is central to our considerations and to which I will return. I have mentioned the conduct of Peter Mandelson while he was a member of the last Labour Government, and the Prime Minister’s judgment in appointing him, but I will also touch on Peter Mandelson’s conduct while he was our ambassador in Washington.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The more we pull on this thread, the more we seem to find. All Peter Mandelson’s dealings, as a politician and as a businessman, should now be laid out for the House and the country to consider.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We know—or at least we are told in the press—that the due diligence report also referred to Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, stating clearly that Mandelson’s relationship had gone over the point of conviction, and drawing attention to the fact that Mandelson had used Epstein’s hospitality in America and Paris while the latter was in prison.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We fully expect the report compiled by that team—the due diligence report—to appear for this House to consider. Reports on that document have appeared in the New Statesman this morning. We are told that the due diligence report contains warnings of “potential conflicts of interest surrounding Global Counsel”, the lobbying firm established by Peter Mandelson, in which he retained a stake of around 28%. We know that Global Counsel had Russian and Chinese clients, about which, according to the reports in the press this morning, the propriety and ethics team had serious concerns.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is a significant representation from a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It must be said that a failure of transparency at each stage of the process appears to have compounded the problems that the Government are now dealing with. What do we know now about the Prime Minister’s judgment and the process in No. 10 around this appointment? We now know that the Prime Minister was aware that Peter Mandelson had an ongoing friendship with Jeffrey Epstein that continued beyond the conviction for awful offences against children. Not only was that in the public domain, but a Financial Times journalist told the Prime Minister about it in January 2024. The Prime Minister admitted in the House today that it was part of the briefing note that he received from the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is no doubt that the Prime Minister’s judgment is being called sharply into question at this moment. It is becoming harder to see how any of us can rely on his judgment in future.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As my right hon. Friend knows, the Government developed an appetite for candour and then lost their appetite. That Bill has disappeared into the ether. Too much candour would do this Government harm.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those are all the ingredients of classic kompromat and this House cannot be deprived of consideration of such issues in the case of the Mandelson papers.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Paymaster General will have seen this morning that the Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, has announced that Poland, one of our strongest allies in Europe, will examine the paedophile’s links with the Russian intelligence services. As he said, “More and more leads, more and more information, and more and more commentary…all relate to the suspicion that this unprecedented paedophilia scandal was co-organised by Russian intelligence services.” Thousands of the documents released over the weekend refer to Putin and thousands more to Moscow. We know that Epstein recruited young Russian women and we know that he held parties in Russia. In some emails, I understand, Epstein said he could offer “insight” on Donald Trump to Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will give way in a moment; I would like to make a little progress. It was reported this morning in the press that in September, following Peter Mandelson’s sacking, there was a Cabinet Office investigation into any further wrongdoing. Will the Paymaster General confirm whether he is aware of such a report and at least assure the House that, if such a report comes to light during his investigations, that will be published in response to this Humble Address? The Conservatives fully understand that the Government have a duty to protect national security and our international relationships—of course they do. They must also understand, however, that security and our international affairs are completely entwined with this issue.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend is quite right that this is exactly one of the issues that must now be investigated and done so very seriously, not just by this Government but by our allies in other jurisdictions. Though we do not yet know for certain how the money came to Epstein, we do now know where some of it went. Understanding its ultimate source will help us construct a picture of this very complex and devious web.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

← Back to the terminal Search YouSaid for Burghart →