John Lamont

John Lamont

Conservative — Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk

Speaking in the House of Commons on 4 February 2026

Debate

Lord Mandelson

Contribution

No matter which party we represent, no matter what deeply held differences we have and no matter how different our beliefs, everyone in this Chamber—indeed, anyone who serves the public—does so in the interests of this nation. We all signed up to serve our country, to do the best by Britain. Peter Mandelson has broken that vow. From politicians to civil servants, we all commit to the Nolan principles of public life. We promise to serve the public with integrity, objectivity, selflessness, accountability, openness and honesty. The principles state, without qualification: “Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest…Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work…Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner.” Peter Mandelson has broken every one of those principles. Every single Member of this House and the other place swears an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. Before we take our seats, Members of Parliament stand in this very Chamber and swear to “be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.” In years gone by, that Oath was to Her late Majesty the Queen. It is an oath to the Crown, but it is also an oath to this country. It is a solemn pledge of loyalty to this nation and its people. Peter Mandelson has betrayed that Oath and betrayed Britain, and the evidence is there for all to see in the Epstein files. Peter Mandelson distributed critical sensitive material about this country and its affairs. He conspired to work with foreign elites against this country’s interests, and against the policy of the Government he served. He gave some of the most privileged information to some very privileged people with the means and power to wield it. His actions could be classed as disloyal and duplicitous even if the recipient of the information was of good standing, but in this case the recipient of Peter Mandelson’s leaks was a convicted paedophile. Privileged information was passed not only to a very privileged individual, but to a disgraced criminal—a grooming-gang master from a grooming gang for the powerful and elite. Perhaps in the fullness of time, Epstein will be viewed as one of the worst grooming-gang masters this planet has seen. In doing so, Peter Mandelson has disgraced himself. His actions and his lack of candour are shameful in the extreme. But it is not Peter Mandelson’s actions that we should be concerned about. Earlier, I omitted one Nolan principle—the final one, which is leadership, and that is precisely what has been lacking from this Government since their formation. This Nolan principle requires public servants to “challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.” Why was Peter Mandelson’s behaviour not challenged by the Prime Minister before his appointment? Why was Peter Mandelson allowed to assume a key role when his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein was known?

More from John Lamont

Other recent Hansard contributions by the same speaker.

About Hansard

Hansard is the official verbatim record of proceedings in the UK Parliament. Every word spoken in the Commons and Lords is recorded and published — this page is a single contribution from that record.

For John Lamont's full parliamentary record including voting history, expenses and all other contributions, see the John Lamont report card.

Partner sites