YouSaid · the spoken record
David Davis
We hold 81 passages that may be David Davis’s. We do not publish them until we can confirm who spoke. See the correction.
On the record 2004–2026
hansard · podcast
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“Former IRA intelligence officer, Kieran Conway, has admitted how leading members of the IRA were tipped off before Garda raids by Garda special branch. That was more than turning a blind eye; it was agencies of the Irish state actively participating in the subversion of justice. There are countless incidents laid bare before us, each one making this point plain. The most horrible one in my mind is from 1989, when two senior Northern Ireland policemen, Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan, were shot dead in an ambush as they crossed back into Northern Ireland. After almost eight years of detailed investigations, the Smithwick Tribunal determined that the Irish police colluded with the IRA in organising that attack.”
House of Commons13 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Straight across the border, aided by their comrades. If hon. Members need a third example, they should look at the Omagh bombing, which was carried out after the Good Friday agreement had been signed. That bombing, which injured more than 200 people and tragically killed 29 innocent civilians, one of whom was pregnant with twins, was both planned and launched from the Republic. Despite this, and notwithstanding the call from a Belfast High Court judge for an investigation on both sides of the border, the Irish Government refused to authorise a separate, parallel inquiry. The pattern is unmistakable, and in some cases, agencies of the Irish Government crossed the line from passive antagonism into active complicity.”
House of Commons13 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the Kingsmill—a terrible tragedy—inquest confirmed, terrorists exploited the porous border ruthlessly. The IRA committed acts of terror in the north and used the Republic as their shield—a base for planning, training, storing weapons and, of course, sanctuary; violence in the north, sanctuary in the south. Consider the brutal murder of Corporal James Elliott in 1972. IRA members abducted him at the border, dragged him into the Republic, tortured him for two days—two days—and shot him dead. They sent his body back across the border, booby-trapped with 500 lb of explosives and six claymores. What did the authorities in the Republic do? They charged two individuals not with murder, but with possessing explosives. When SAS Captain Herbert Westmacott was murdered, the killers escaped jail before they could be sentenced. Where did they flee?”
House of Commons13 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Their loss is significant; it is a direct consequence of legal uncertainty and the erosion of trust.” I can attest to the fact that that is true. These are the reasons that our veterans hate this new legislation and view it as grotesquely unfair. It also raises the question of who the Government are trying to appease. When the Government announced the policy, it was done not in this House—I think it was on a Friday—but in a joint statement alongside the Irish Tánaiste. The Irish Government are being treated as an independent party to these troubles and brought into the reformed legacy commission established by the new Bill as a party that is assumed to be acting in good faith. Well, I am afraid that is not true. There is overwhelming evidence showing the Republic providing sanctuary to IRA terrorists during the troubles.”
House of Commons13 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They see that as a victory—that and the fact that it allows them another chance to rewrite history, to fit their own bogus claims. That is why, in a letter on Remembrance Day that has been repeated in this Chamber a number of times, nine four-star generals wrote: “By extending the same protections to those who enforced the law and those who defied it, the bill becomes morally incoherent. It treats those who upheld the peace and those who bombed and murdered…as equivalent actors in a shared tragedy.” They go on to highlight the immediate effect, because we must bear in mind that this is having an effect right now on our serving armed forces. They said: “highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service. These are the men and women who quietly neutralise threats and protect lives every week.”
House of Commons13 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree with the hon. Lady’s conclusion, and I happen to agree, as I will come back to in a moment, with the republicans’ view of the coroner’s inquiry process. It comes back to the issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) raised as to what the punishment was. For a decent, ordinary, law-abiding soldier, the punishment is in the process—being dragged back, having this hanging over them for decades, the uncertainty they face, the sleepless nights and the stress it brings to them and their wives and children, who are worried in their own right and worried about their husband or father. That, I am afraid, is what the IRA and their sympathisers want. It is one of the reasons the IRA consider the very fact of Loughgall being referred to an inquest as a victory.”
House of Commons13 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The fear that lawful actions may later be judged unlawful will paralyse decision-making, distort rules of engagement and deter initiative.””
House of Commons11 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It will not bring terrorists to account; it will not heal division in Northern Ireland; and it undermines the confidence of those who volunteer to serve this country at its request and under its authority. This lawfare is a direct threat to national security. Contrary to recent ministerial assurances, highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service. These are the men and women who quietly neutralise threats and protect lives every week. Their loss is significant; it is a direct consequence of legal uncertainty and the erosion of trust. This is a corrosive form of ‘lawfare’…which now extends far beyond Northern Ireland. Today every deployed member of the British Armed Forces must consider not only the enemy in front but the lawyer behind.”
House of Commons11 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, those special forces and that capacity to protect innocent lives are at risk. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said earlier, only today we have seen nine retired four-star generals warning in The Times of the damaging effects of lawfare. I will quote some of their words extensively and put them on the parliamentary record. They said: “Having held the honour of leading the United Kingdom’s armed forces…we feel bound to warn that the government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and the legal activism surrounding it, risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends. Presented as a route to justice and closure, the bill achieves neither.”
House of Commons11 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It was a deliberate and careful approach…It required precision, intelligence, self-control, skill…in the face of immense danger—the very opposite of the hot-blooded, murderous drama depicted by poorly informed outsiders. At the start of 2005, approximately 100 vehicle-borne suicide bombs were being detonated every month in Baghdad by AQ-I”— al-Qaeda in Iraq— “and thousands of Shia Muslims were being slaughtered by assassination gangs. But by the end of 2007, after the combined US and SAS effort…The number of suicide bombs had dropped to a single detonation per month”— saving lives— “and the Sunni population of central Iraq was supporting the coalition efforts in eradicating AQ-I from their midst. It was a remarkable outcome justifiably celebrated by military and political leaders”, and it was all down to our soldiers.”
House of Commons11 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Every nation rightly celebrates the heroism of its soldiers, but in the United Kingdom’s case, we also celebrate their skill in avoiding innocent deaths when dealing with the enemies of our nation and our democracy. When nations neutralise terrorists, they typically use a bomb or a missile, but bombs and missiles also kill innocent bystanders in the house, in the wedding party or in the bus, so Britain, as the Minister knows better than anybody else, often uses special forces in those circumstances. Richard Williams, the former commanding officer of the 22nd Special Air Service Regiment during our operations in Iraq, said that “the SAS soldiers took extreme risks, facing violent and well-prepared opposition to capture these terrorists and hand them on to Iraqi justice and detention.”
House of Commons11 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire raised this issue, and I understand that it is an uncomfortable one for a day like today, but it is important that we are not guilty of hypocrisy in this Chamber, and that we recognise that the people we are standing up for face a new threat that we have to deal with. I have to say to the House, again to the Minister’s probable discomfort, that I have been surprised, on two occasions in the last two weeks, to have people on the frontline on this issue quote Martin Luther King: “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” We owe it to them not to be silent on these issues.”
House of Commons11 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yes, that is right. All of them had soldiers serve under them at risk on the frontline and had soldiers die under their command, so they are all people with strong knowledge of what we are talking about. To go on with the quotation: “And make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.” If we do not speak up to protect both our current service personnel and our veterans, the innocent will suffer, as I have described, because we will not be able to do what we have done in the past and we will find ourselves unable to defend our nation when called upon. The Minister did not like it when my right hon.”
House of Commons11 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Despite that, with no evidence whatsoever having been provided since that time, that man is being put through misery and persecution now—a 78-year-old man sitting in anxiety in his home, waiting to be prosecuted for a case that should never have been brought. Does the Secretary of State not recognise that this is injustice? Wrap it up however he likes, it is injustice, and his legislation will mean that many more such cases will occur.”
House of Commons3 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Front Benchers have rightly referred to the pain of the relatives of those who died on Bloody Sunday. We all share their sympathy, but nothing justifies the persecution of innocent people, particularly innocent veterans. The judge in the trial said: “The evidence presented by the Crown falls well short of…the high standard of proof required in a criminal case”. Nevertheless, in two weeks’ time, there will be another case involving another soldier from 53 years ago, which has already been reviewed for four years by the Director of Public Prosecutions and ruled as “no case to answer”.”
House of Commons3 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“During his responses today, the Secretary of State has said two things: on the one hand, he said that letters of comfort do not give immunity; and on the other hand, he accepted that letters of comfort stopped the prosecution of Mr Downey for the Hyde Park bombing. It seems to me that those two statements are inconsistent. What way is available to him to correct Hansard and put one of them right?”
House of Commons3 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I cannot really comment on electronic voting, but I was going to make a comment in the other direction—about learning in both directions. I believe that Donald Dewar, in his heroic struggle to bring about devolution, wanted a strong Scottish Parliament, in terms of privilege, in terms of the right to summon Ministers—”
House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Powers, yes, in terms of order and the balance of power between Parliament and Government, which he wanted to be much stronger as well. Does the hon. Lady think that that would be a good thing?”
House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What will happen when this system comes into effect is that the entire population’s entire data will be open to malevolent actors—foreign nations, ransomware criminals, malevolent hackers and even their own personal or political enemies. As a result, this will be worse than the Horizon scandal.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In view of the time limits, I will focus solely on the scandalously insecure One Login procedure. I will be writing to ask the National Audit Office to investigate because, apart from the strategic weakness of having a single login, the Government’s handling has been a disaster. As early as 2022, the information assurance team responsible for ensuring the security of the system raised concerns that it was being developed on unsecured workstations, by contractors in Romania who did not have security clearance. When it ran a red-team operation to see how secure it was, they broke into the system easily. They would have been able to install malware, and they were not even detected by the people running the system.”
House of Commons21 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Hence I have concluded that this is one of those rare cases in which, in the particular circumstances, it offends the court’s sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the defendant.” In other words, it is an amnesty, whether the Government like it or not.”
House of Commons15 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Secretary of State’s allegations about the legacy Act rest on a fiction that the Labour Government have not already handed out amnesties to all those terrorist killers. Two facts need to be put in front of the House. One is from the Good Friday agreement, which “put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners…convicted of scheduled offences”. That is one half of the amnesty. The other half is the comfort letters, and the right place to look there is the judge’s ruling in the Downey case, which shot down any future prosecutions. The judge said—I will read it carefully—that there is a “public interest in holding officials of the state to promises they have made in full understanding of what is involved in the bargain.”
House of Commons15 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) described it as a persecution, punishing them for doing nothing more than their duty. Is this really what the Secretary of State intends?”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In March of this year, it was widely reported that the Secretary of State gave his word to Mairead Kelly, the sister of IRA murderer Patrick Kelly, that there would be an inquest on the Loughgall incident. Is this remedial order a fulfilment of that promise? If so, it means that 30 years on, the Government are dragging veterans into court over an operation that stopped eight heavily armed IRA murderers—men who had already killed and who were on their way to kill again, with weapons that had been used in 40 previous murders. Let us be clear: by stopping the attack, those soldiers prevented the murder of many more innocent Northern Ireland citizens. What justice is served by punishing those brave soldiers with a stressful and unnecessary process? The hon.”
House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the Minister means what he said about future dealings, will he start by doing what a number of people have called for and refusing to approve the espionage centre masquerading as an embassy at the Royal Mint? Will he reject it and tell the Chinese, effectively, that enough is enough?”
House of Commons13 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister used the Roussev case in his own defence. In that case, the Court of Appeal set the clear precedent that the appropriate definition of an enemy state is not based on what the Government say—it is a state that behaves like an enemy. The judge stated plainly that “There is no reason in our view why the term ‘an enemy’ should not include a country which represents a current threat to the national security of the UK.” Throughout the duration of this case, there has been ample evidence—including from the Intelligence and Security Committee and the current director of MI5—that China represents a threat to our national security, including at the time when Mr Berry and Mr Cash were acting as spies. The Prime Minister’s comments on this case were frankly nonsense, and it is time that we stop kowtowing and take a stand against China.”
House of Commons13 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Indeed, in British embassies, the agencies report to the ambassador. It is not the same in American embassies, where the CIA does what it wants. Our agencies report to the ambassador, so it is a sensitive post. Today, Peter Kyle—I have forgotten his new post—said that global circumstances dictate that the position of this particular ambassador is more important than it has ever been, and it could easily go terribly wrong. The failure to appoint the right person has already had a serious and deleterious impact on the national interest.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thirdly, what has happened in the last couple of weeks to lead to the demise of the former ambassador—who made the critical decisions and why? Fourthly, what do we do now? How do we make this Government tell the House and the nation the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth—which in itself would be a novelty for Lord Mandelson? Let us begin with whether Lord Mandelson was ever an appropriate selection. As I said yesterday, our ambassador in Washington stands at the nexus of our most important bilateral relationship. For those who have not served in government, it is the one bilateral relationship run by No. 10, not the Foreign Office. That is because it is so important, and it is a role of exceptional sensitivity. More classified information crosses the ambassador’s desk than gets to most Cabinet Ministers.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is an issue that does not just concern the Conservative party, the Scottish National party or the DUP; Members from all parts of the House are worried about it, as we have seen in the newspapers. The Government have key questions to answer, and as I said yesterday, the central question is: who knew what, and when? Let us be clear, though. There are many questions on many levels in this matter, and the Government must answer them all; so far, they have singularly failed to do so. The questions fall naturally into four categories. First, was Peter Mandelson ever an appropriate character to appoint as our ambassador? [Hon. Members: “No.”] Well, we will get to that later. Secondly, what was the procedure for vetting, was it properly followed, and why has it gone so horribly wrong?”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the appointment process and the circumstances leading to the dismissal of the former United Kingdom Ambassador to the United States, Lord Mandelson. Sometimes exquisite coincidences happen in this place. We have just seen a Bill presented on the topic of public office accountability by the immediate past Foreign Secretary, the now Justice Secretary. I will just read to the House the first line of its description: “a Bill to impose a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness”. I think I might return to those issues in the course of what I have to say. As I have said, this is a matter of utmost concern across the House.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is no doubt that the right hon. Lady is correct. Frankly, I am going to try not to make this ad hominem about the Ministers who made decisions; we need to make that decision later, as it were. She is right that it has diminished the standing of our Prime Minister, and I regret that. Although we are the Opposition, I want this Government to succeed in the national interest, and this is doing the opposite of that. The ambassador’s conduct, both prior to appointment and during, must reflect the highest standards of integrity—that is fundamental, and it is true for any ambassador.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When we look at the mechanisms engaged, as I hope we will in the course of this debate, we will see why the Prime Minister made the wrong decision. There is no doubt in my mind that he did.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand all too well the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Many have made it in the newspapers, although generally anonymously. A double standard applies to the top of the Labour party—Labour royalty, if you like—as opposed to other people who have been punished for doing their job, representing their people and so on. He has got a point.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Mandelson attempted to influence the Home Office to give Mr Hinduja a passport when Mr Hinduja and his brother were under investigation in the Bofors weapons contract scandal—again, a dubious reason. Incidentally, it was at about that time that his association with Epstein started, and the infamous birthday book entries date from then.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One of his flaws was described plainly by one of his friends back then, who said: “Peter was living beyond his means, pretending to be something he’s not, and therefore he was beholden to people.” The important bit is that last phrase: he was beholden to people. It was a characteristic that was displayed time and again as he sought to use his position to curry favour with very wealthy and very powerful people who were either current or future benefactors. This was repeated in 2001, when Lord Mandelson was again sacked after attempting to broker a British passport for Mr Hinduja, a wealthy donor to the Millennium Dome project, with which he was involved.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the history that I am about to detail, we see a Peter Mandelson who is easily dazzled by wealth and glamour and is willing to use his public position to pursue those things for himself. This was visible very early in his career, even to his friends. In 1998, he was sacked as Trade and Industry Secretary for failing to declare a pretty enormous interest-free loan that he had received from Geoffrey Robinson. At that time Mr Robinson’s businesses were being investigated by Mandelson’s Department, so there was a clear clash of interests, and Mandelson did not even declare the loan. That was the first occasion on which we saw so publicly the abiding flaws in his character, which would generally disqualify any normal person for a job as important as this. Even his friends saw that.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Traditionally they would review the history and personality of the candidate, assessing risks, such as the risk of the candidate being susceptible to undue influence, or, in extreme examples, blackmail—the Russians and the Chinese collect kompromat all the time; the risk of the candidate abusing or misusing the role; the risk of the candidate doing something that would cause reputational damage; or the risk, with which some on the Labour Front Bench may have difficulties and which they may find rather old-fashioned, that the candidate is too morally flawed to be given a major role in any case and fails a simple ethical test, which is where we may arrive in a moment. I am afraid that I am old-fashioned. I view ethical tests as an absolute, which cannot be traded off against some benefit or other.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There was, and is, a vast amount of data in the public domain. Most of what I will speak of today is public domain material—I will explain when it is not. What would those conducting that vetting process be looking for? A number of us on these Benches and, I would imagine, on most Benches have been through such processes ourselves.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. We will come to a number of circumstances in which information was available and should have been, but was not, acted upon. This was not as hard as some may try to portray it as being: after all, the appointment did not come as a surprise. Lord Mandelson himself was clearly campaigning to become the ambassador after failing to win the chancellorship of Oxford University. Indeed, someone told me that he was actually campaigning for the ambassadorship while also campaigning for the chancellorship, so he was after two jobs, not one. It was clear at an early stage that he was going to attempt to do this, and there was widespread discussion at the time about his suitability for the role, so there was plenty of time for a preliminary investigative or vetting process.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He saw nothing wrong with such apparently compromising behaviour, and in that category, indeed rather at the top of it, was his association with the Russian oligarch and gangster capitalist Oleg Deripaska. Let us be clear who we are talking about here, because most Members probably do not know much about him. Mr Deripaska was the winner of the battle for control of the Russian aluminium industry, a battle in which roughly 100 people were murdered. In court reports, Interpol documents and American Government publications, Deripaska has faced serious allegations of murder, bribery, extortion, and involvement in organised crime. This is a truly bad man.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am very glad to say that I am not the Prime Minister’s speechwriter, but all I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I hope the issue does not come up, because it would undoubtedly be embarrassing and diplomatically problematic for the Prime Minister. Astonishingly, after being sacked twice for misdemeanours, in 2004 Lord Mandelson was appointed by Tony Blair to be the European trade commissioner. He was, as it were, given a third chance. As the trade commissioner, he was criticised on numerous occasions for accepting lavish hospitality from companies on whose commercial interests he was in the process of ruling—whether the company concerned was Microsoft, an Italian shoe producer or whatever—which, for some reason, often involved free luxury cruises.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China presented a dossier to US Senators, which provoked enough concern that they passed it to the FBI. This may have been a reason—and here I am surmising—for the purported concerns about whether the Trump Administration would allow Mandelson’s accreditation back in January.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not have documentary records on this, so I am not going to name the companies I am talking about, but there are Russian companies—extremely dubious Russian companies—and Chinese companies. I am looking at my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who would recognise a number of the Chinese companies because he has campaigned about them, but I will leave it there. In the context of Lord Mandelson’s appointment to Washington—and bear in mind that this is all to do with a judgment made about his being the ambassador in Washington—it is his close association with the organs of the Chinese state that should have raised most red flags, if the House will forgive the pun.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In 2008 Mandelson was, very controversially, raised to the peerage by Gordon Brown and appointed Business Secretary. His contact with Epstein did not end. As Epstein was pleading guilty to child sex offences, Mandelson emailed him: “I think the world of you and I feel hopeless and furious about what has happened... Your friends stay with you and love you.” Little remorse there, shall we say, and little pity for the victims. After Lord Mandelson left office when Labour lost the election in 2010, he founded a lobbying firm, Global Counsel. Controversially, he did not name his clients. The House of Lords has rather slack rules about this, so somebody can create a company and just declare that they get however much money from the company, but they do not declare who the customers really are.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Deripaska’s activities were known to the British security services, and briefings were available to Mandelson, so, again, there is no excuse. He did this in the full knowledge of who he was dealing with. It was in this position that Mandelson promoted and signed off concessions to Russian aluminium companies, which ultimately benefited Mr Deripaska, or his companies, to the tune of $200 million a year. Although it did not actually happen, one company was due to be the subject of an initial public offering—due to be floated—shortly thereafter. A $200 million change in profits tends to mean a multibillion-dollar change in value, and that will have gone into the pocket of Mr Deripaska. As we all know, Deripaska is a nominee of Putin, so we can assume that a large chunk of it went to Putin as well.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Had the hon. Gentleman been here before the last election, he would have sat in this Chamber, I hope, and heard me opine on all those subjects and raise prospective laws to deal with those oligarchs, laws that, sadly, this Government have failed to carry through. That, then, is the backdrop. Mr Deripaska’s visa was revoked by the Americans in 2006, so Mandelson had no excuse for not knowing about his activities, yet as European trade commissioner he saw fit to accept hospitality from Deripaska on multiple occasions over several years, which included visiting him in Moscow and being flown by his private jet to stay at his dacha in Siberia and on his private yacht in the Mediterranean—all while considering whether to give Russian aluminium access to the European market.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That astonishing statement was followed later in 2021 by Mandelson being the only Labour peer to vote—against a three-line Whip—against a genocide amendment that would have meant this country had to reconsider any trade deal with a country found by the High Court to be committing genocide, and most specifically China was in the crosshairs. Frankly, it would appear that Lord Mandelson has subcontracted his conscience for money.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am going to be very gentle. Let me just say that we are talking about a very serious issue, in which the national interest is engaged, and about somebody who in my view has used his public position to his own advantage and to the disadvantage of the state. That is not true of some candidate working in a junior role for the company, but it is true of the man who created that company and used it to promote his own interests. To come back to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, from my point of view—and this is personal rather than political—even more worrying were the attitudes struck by Mandelson in February 2021 when, during a lobbying meeting on behalf of his rich clients, he told Chinese Premier Li Keqiang that the critics of Beijing’s human rights record would be “proved wrong”.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and the Senators to whom these documents were sent are very responsible ones. They would not frivolously pass on such documents to the FBI, and the FBI would not frivolously accept them and investigate.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I say to my right hon. Friend that the Prime Minister gave what was clearly—what can I say?—a lawyer’s answer to that question, which as we all know is not a proper answer at all. No. 10 was well aware that Mandelson had continued his relationship with Epstein after he was convicted as a paedophile. How the Prime Minister could possibly have thought it was wise to appoint a man who was on record consorting with alleged murderers and convicted paedophiles to a position of privilege and power is, to me, utterly unfathomable.”
House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗