(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, in discussing this matter we must, as always, keep Jeffrey Epstein’s victims and their families at the forefront of our minds. I pay tribute to the brave women and girls who were abused by him who have spoken out and called for justice.
The Prime Minister told the House of Commons on 4 February that Peter Mandelson, when questioned about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, “lied repeatedly”. To date, we are yet to see evidence of those lies, but we do now have proof that the Prime Minister was directly informed that Mandelson had maintained his relationship with Epstein after the latter had been convicted for child sex offences.
Upon receipt of this information, the Prime Minister, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, did not undertake a searching inquiry for the truth but instead left it to two personal friends of Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney and Matthew Doyle—now the noble Lord, Lord Doyle—to engage in a farcical form of due diligence consisting of questions we are yet to see and answers that continue to be withheld. As if that were not concerning enough, it has been reported in the Times that no written record of the appointment of Mandelson exists. I find this extraordinary. As others who, like me, have worked in Downing Street know, there simply has to be an audit trail to transmit the Prime Minister’s decision. The decision, we are asked to believe, was made in an informal meeting with senior advisers.
The House should pause at this stage to recollect that a previous Prime Minister was heavily criticised by the House of Commons Committee of Privileges report of 15 June 2023, when, in making statements to the Commons, he relied on assurances that
“did not emanate from senior permanent civil servants or government lawyers”.
Can the Minister say whether the Prime Minister misled the House of Commons when he gave the assurance that full due diligence was followed? Does she accept that the sole basis on which the Prime Minister gave that statement was the undocumented assurances of two personal friends of Peter Mandelson?
I turn to other matters. Why was Peter Mandelson paid £70,000? The Government’s argument is that not paying him would have resulted in a claim in the employment tribunal, with associated costs to the taxpayer. Can the Minister explain why the Government did not have the courage to stand up to Mandelson to ensure that he would not receive a penny of taxpayers’ money following his dismissal? The Prime Minister has said on the record that Mandelson acted dishonestly to gain the post of ambassador. If that was true, surely Mandelson’s case would not have been successful at the tribunal. Does the Minister understand why the public are so angry about this? He should not have received a penny.
When we last repeated a Statement on the Government’s response to this humble Address, I asked whether the Government would publish a schedule that would show which documents are being withheld and which are being published. I did not get an answer then, but the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said in the other place
“I would need to take advice from lawyers in the Metropolitan Police before I could say whether these documents are being held for their criminal investigation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/26; col. 364.].
Yesterday, the Official Opposition reiterated the need for this, given that at least 56 documents are thought to be missing. Has that advice been sought? When will the Government give a formal answer to this important question, which has already been put to Ministers a number of times? For the sake of public confidence in the process that Ministers and officials are following in response to the humble Address, we must be able to see the amount of information that is being withheld and for what reason.
Evidence that we have already seen shows that the Prime Minister knew as a fact that Mandelson maintained his relationship with Epstein after the latter’s conviction. The Prime Minister knew that Mandelson was unfit to be our ambassador but appointed him anyway and allowed two of Mandelson’s personal friends to synthesise an entirely farcical, illusory form of due diligence. At the end of this, the Prime Minister placed into our most prestigious and pivotal diplomatic post a man who is, as a matter of public record, already known to be a serial liar. Surely the truth is that the misplaced trust is not that of the Prime Minister in Peter Mandelson but the trust that the British people placed in the Prime Minister at the last election—a trust that all too many now feel to have been entirely misplaced.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches hesitate to criticise the due diligence process by the security services and the Civil Service; it seems to have been effectively and efficiently done but disregarded by the Prime Minister’s political advisers and overridden by the Prime Minister. Presumably he thought the task of establishing and maintaining a close relationship with President Trump demanded someone like Peter Mandelson in spite of, or even because of, his flaws.
Can the Minister tell us when further files will be released? I have just looked through the first package that has been released, which is actually very thin. There is clearly an awful lot more to come out—to repeat, there is a lot to come out not just from London but from Washington, which will overlap on to this.
I am sure the whole House will be happy that the Minister has been appointed by the Prime Minister to look further into this. We will all do our best to co-operate with her in making sure that standards and procedures are improved. Can she tell us more about her work programme in her new responsibilities on ethics and standards? Will that work be primarily within government or across the parties and both Houses to make sure that, as far as possible, it gets the maximum buy-in from everyone concerned and interested in politics, and will therefore have the best chance of succeeding? Will she, for example, consider strengthening the parliamentary oversight of major public appointments, which is, after all, a common occurrence in a number of other parliamentary democracies?
How do the Government propose to strengthen further the Ministerial Code? Will they commit to regular revisions with advice from committees in both Houses?
Does the Minister recognise that the case that many of us keep making for putting the Ethics and Integrity Commission, ACOBA and a number of other bodies on a statutory basis is a matter of future-proofing? We do not know what the outcome of the next election will be but it could be extremely messy and lead to some form of coalition Government. We need to make sure that we future-proof our standards and commitments to make sure that any new Government who come in will find it easier to accept them than to override them. We have plenty of lessons from Washington of how easily things can go wrong, and we need as far as we can to prevent them similarly going wrong over here.
Can the Minister say a little about implications for the House of Lords? I note that the Conduct Committee is being charged with the rather difficult task of looking at our standards. The Leader of the House reprimanded me the other week for referring to us as a part-time House and replied that we are now effectively a full-time House. Yes, we are, but the way in which we are managed and governed still assumes that we are part-time and earn other things outside the House, and that that requires us to have a different set of concerns about private, commercial and financial interests and activities outside from those in the Commons. If we are now to be judged on the same level as the Commons as a full-time House then that is quite a radical readjustment of the way one thinks about the second Chamber.
Can I also ask a little about what happens when Peers are disbarred from the House? Will the Government consider putting before the House the idea that they should no longer be able to hold their titles? Removing them from the peerage roll would be perhaps a more important way of signalling that they no longer have a position of honour within our political system.
Of course, behind all this there are some broader issues about the financial and political culture in London, Washington, New York and Westminster. Wealth and money in politics is something we are all going to face as the Representation of the People Bill arrives in this House in a few months. We will need to look at that very carefully. I hope we may be assured that the Government will work with us to make sure that money does not override other matters in our life.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent)
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their questions. It is incredibly important that these matters are addressed, not least because they now drive a huge amount of my own personal work. I will come on to that.
First, I will provide an update following the Statement made in the other place last week by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister on the release of the first tranche of documents in response to the humble Address Motion of 4 February. As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister rightly stated:
“Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed … disgusting crimes that destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. What he did is … unforgivable”.
His victims must be
“our first priority. Peter Mandelson’s behaviour”—
including encouraging Jeffrey Epstein to fight his conviction for abusing a vulnerable young girl—
“was an insult to them and their suffering”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/26; col. 359.]
We should also never forget that every time we discuss Epstein’s horrendous behaviour, his victims relive awful experiences. These survivors must be front and centre when we debate all issues related to Jeffrey Epstein, his network and their impact.
That is why there is a cross-party consensus in both Houses for full transparency and accountability. The Government are committed to publishing all documents relevant to the humble Address and last week published the first tranche. These documents relate specifically to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US and the discussions that subsequently led to his dismissal. Further work is ongoing to compile the rest of the information in scope. The Government recognise the urgency with which this work must be completed and will keep your Lordships updated as it progresses.
The Prime Minister has taken personal responsibility for Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador. He has acknowledged that it was a mistake and apologised, not least for believing Peter Mandelson’s lies. While the documents point to public reports of an ongoing relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, the advice did not expose the depth and extent of their relationship, which became apparent only after the release of files by Bloomberg and then the US Department of Justice.
As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set out last week, there are specific documents that this Government would like to disclose but the Metropolitan Police has asked us not to do so yet to avoid prejudicing the ongoing criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson. We have agreed to that request. We will publish these documents once the Metropolitan Police has confirmed that this will no longer prejudice its investigation.
The Government have already taken steps to address weaknesses in the system and I will update your Lordships on the further steps we will take. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have asked the Conduct Committee of your Lordships’ House to review the Code of Conduct to consider what changes are required to ensure that Members of your Lordships’ House can be removed when they have brought the peerage into disrepute. We are also exploring whether the committee can further strengthen the rules on lobbying and paid advocacy.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister also announced that the Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to conduct a review of the current arrangements relating to financial disclosures for Ministers and senior officials, transparency around lobbying, and the Business Appointment Rules, and I look forward to receiving its report before the Summer Recess. The Chief Secretary also confirmed that we will conduct a review of the national security vetting system to ensure that we learn the lessons from the policy and process weaknesses related to the Mandelson case.
With regard to some of the specifics that were asked, I think some of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will be slightly easier for me to answer, given that they are in my direct purview. On the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, we have been clear that many more documents will follow in coming tranches. The noble Baroness was concerned about who is seeing what and when. I want to be clear that, while we are withholding some documents at the request of the Metropolitan Police, we have agreed with Simon Hoare MP, the chair of PACAC in the other place, that he is seeing all documents being withheld, so a member of His Majesty’s Opposition is seeing everything as we go through it.
Given the scale of what we are doing and the fact that we are complying and will comply with both the spirit and the letter of the humble Address, it is appropriate that we are releasing the documents in such a way that is sensible given their nature, but also that the ISC is seeing them so that it can deal with them. I assure noble Lords that all the documents will be published and that noble Lords will have the opportunity to see them all—but, given the live police investigation, we have to take this step by step.
I just want to touch on the 56 documents. I have read the paperwork related to them but I do not recognise the 56 documents. The noble Baroness asked specifically whether legal advice had been taken on the schedule. I have not seen that, but I will revert to her if such advice exists. She also questioned whether the Prime Minister had misled the Commons. He absolutely has not; his comments all the way through are in line with the paperwork being released in each tranche.
On some of the specifics raised by the noble Baroness, obviously she is aware that I cannot comment on the Committee of Privileges of the other place—that was Parliament holding a former Member to account. She asked about some of the things that we have already done, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I will touch on severance payments, which were a core theme from the noble Baroness. As the documents show, Peter Mandelson initially requested a sum that was substantially larger than the final payment—more than six times the final amount—despite the fact that he was withdrawn from Washington because he had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister. As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister explained yesterday, the Government obviously found that to be inappropriate and unacceptable. The settlement that was agreed was to avoid even higher costs from a drawn-out legal claim at the employment tribunal, given Peter Mandelson’s employment as a civil servant rather than a Minister.
As noble Lords will know, Ministers can be dismissed without recourse to the employment tribunal—let us hope I am not experiencing that soon—but civil servants are treated differently. As can be seen from the documents, Peter Mandelson’s settlement was in line with his employment contract and standard Civil Service HR processes, avoiding the risk and high costs of drawn-out legal action and ensuring he was quickly removed from the payroll. As set out in the documents, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury approved this payment in line with standard HMT guidance on the use of severance payments.
I have already touched on the issue of vetting, but I want to spend a couple of moments responding to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. On the question about the release of further documentation, given that this request is supported by both Houses but is about the Commons and complying with the Commons, obviously we need to lay those documents when the House is sitting. Those documents will come forward in due course, either before or after the Recess.
I look forward to discussing many details of my own work programme with Members of your Lordships’ House, not least the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I truly believe that if we are to rebuild faith in politicians, and in what I consider to be one of the most important buildings in the country, it has to be a cross-party, cross-government and cross-Parliament project, so I will actively seek to work with all Members of your Lordships’ House on where we believe the gaps are, what we can realistically fix and how we can rebuild trust.
With regard to the Ministerial Code revisions, the noble Lord will not be surprised that, unlike his colleagues in the other place, who suggested that we may want to put it on a statutory footing, we will not be seeking to do that, but I am very aware of what he said about future-proofing standards. Many people who have been at this Dispatch Box and at Dispatch Boxes in the other place are aware that we rarely get to look at standards in the round. The last time that was done with a clear objective was in establishing the Nolan principles. I view this as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make sure that we get this right. We have a Minister dedicated to it—I do not know the last time that happened—so it is about how we can ensure we use this moment to fix the things that typically get pushed to one side.
However, I agree with my noble friend the Leader of our House, Lady Smith: we are a full-time House with part-time Members and we are different from the other place. Noble Lords will be aware that I used to be a Member of the other place and am married to a Member of the other place; what he is expected to do and what I did before I was on the Front Bench are two very different sets of responsibilities. We need to make sure that we do not lose what is so special about this building and our Chamber, and some of the expertise we have because of people’s outside interests compared to the other place.
The noble Lord raised the Representation of the People Bill and the impact of money. He did not touch on the Rycroft review, which will be coming forward and will very much tie into our discussions on these issues.
I conclude by reiterating that Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable individual, and Peter Mandelson’s decision to put their relationship before his victims and the vulnerable is reprehensible. As the Prime Minister said, the victims of Epstein have lived with trauma that most of us can barely comprehend. They have had to relive it again and again, and they have had to see accountability delayed and too often denied. Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed. The Government will comply with the humble Address and I will provide further updates to your Lordships’ House in due course.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, is participating remotely and I invite him to speak now.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend the Minister for bringing to the House this excellent Statement. I congratulate her on her very appropriate appointment, which shows the sincerity and determination of the Government to take this issue seriously. I recognise that the Liberal spokesperson asked some sensible questions, which the Minister has responded to. However, I was really disappointed that the Official Opposition took this as another opportunity to attack the Prime Minister and his integrity. That was an unfortunate lapse of judgment by their Front Bench.
Will the Minister confirm that this House needs to look at its own procedures and arrangements as well? The recent Chadlington case shows that we are not above reproach. Will she indicate that this will be a much wider look at the whole aspect of how the Government and Parliament operate? Will she indicate how much the whole long and complicated exercise might cost, because it is not without substantial cost?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
It is a true joy to see my noble friend, if only on a screen. I am so pleased that he is well enough to participate, if remotely. I cannot wait to see him back in his place.
My noble friend asked me several questions. I want to focus on the fact that there is a responsibility on every Member of your Lordships’ House and everyone who serves in this building, whether in the other place or here, as well as those who support all of us, to help rebuild trust in politics. My noble friend spent a long career door-knocking and campaigning, and we know how important this is. With regard to the costs, I do not have a total cost to give my noble friend at this time and it will not be possible to give a running update. However, I can confirm that Civil Service resource has been redeployed, meaning that this will not create any net cost to the taxpayer. Any additional costs will be set out in due course.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Would the Minister agree that one of the ironies of this sorry saga is that His Majesty’s Government had a highly competent ambassador in Washington DC, Karen Pierce, who had the confidence of the Trump Administration and was widely respected in that city? Does the Minister agree that no Government should be appointing political cronies to this type of position but should be selecting from the wide category of highly competent professional diplomats?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord, as ever, raises an interesting and non-straightforward point for me to answer. On the process, while this was unusual it is not unheard of. Three Members of your Lordships’ House were political appointees from both parties to hold ambassadorial roles, both by previous Labour Governments and by the Conservative Government. There is a clear process for such appointments. The process was followed; the process did not work; the process has now changed.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
The private lives of the decadent rich are always going to arouse interest in the media and with the general public. The Prime Minister has failed to answer some very embarrassing questions about what he knew when he made this appointment. In my opinion, this whole thing became overwhelmingly more serious when allegations were made that Lord Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten had been repaying the hospitality they received by giving classified government financial and economic information to a financier to help him with his investments. If that is true, it is one of the most serious allegations of corruption in public life in recent years. We normally assume that we do not have that in this country. Can the Minister assure me that the Metropolitan Police is being given full support in getting on with the task of investigating that, and that there will be no suggestion of political pressure at any stage to stop the full force of the law being brought forward? Others must be deterred in future from being tempted to go in for that kind of corrupt behaviour.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Before I answer the substance of the question, while I appreciate the issues that were raised, the private lives of the decadent rich are of no odds here. It is about abuse and violence against women and girls, and illegal behaviour; it is not about a decadent life. Regardless of whether they are rich or not, people should be held to account with the full force of the law. On classified government information, noble Lords will be aware there is a live police investigation so I cannot comment on the detail. However, I would expect the Met Police to receive absolute full support. If laws have been broken, people should be prosecuted.
Lord Swire (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made an extremely pertinent point about Lord Mandelson’s predecessor, Dame Karen Pierce. First, can the Minister confirm that, during the scope of this investigation, we will look at the representations the Prime Minister will have received arguing that Dame Karen should have been kept in place to handle a very unpredictable and volatile president? Can the Minister confirm what pressure the Prime Minister came under, and from whom, to replace her with Lord Mandelson? Secondly, if we are investigating Lord Mandelson’s suitability for public office of any sort historically, will the scope of that investigation be extended to his time as an EU commissioner in Brussels? There are some very serious questions and allegations surrounding his time there.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
It may be helpful to inform your Lordships’ House that the previous ambassador to America had come to the end of her tenure. The question would have been whether the tenure would be extended or not, not whether she should have been removed. I do not believe that is within the scope of the paperwork; the paperwork being released directly pertains to the appointment and withdrawal of Peter Mandelson as His Majesty’s ambassador. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord. On the scope of the humble Address and the EU processes, I believe other organisations are looking at other roles and some of the history. On the scope of what is currently in play, there is a live police investigation. The matter before us relating to the humble Address concerns the immediate period before and during his appointment.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, the humble Address referred on several occasions to electronic communications between officials in the Government and political appointees. Under the Freedom of Information Act, it has been long-standing practice that communications between Ministers and officials, on whatever device, and whether they are private or government emails, are within scope of freedom of information laws. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are working on the basis that all such communications, whether they are private or government emails, are within scope? Assuming they are, what steps are being taken to secure and recover such information from those officials who are no longer within the Government’s employ—specifically, the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
To confirm, all electronic communication is in scope and will be released in future tranches of materials. On the steps being taken to secure the materials, the Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office has contacted all other Permanent Secretaries to make sure that materials are being secured and passed on. Those materials are currently being collated for further release. On the former chief of staff, as set out by my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, there was correspondence between No. 10 and Lord Peter Mandelson, in which a number of follow-up questions were asked. I would assume that those materials are going to be released as well.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that the complexities of employment law mean that you have to pay someone some money when they work for you. Has anyone approached Mandelson, who has done disgraceful things, to ask whether he wants to give this money to a buy-a-warship fund, or some other charity, rather than take it for himself?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I wondered how my noble friend was going to get a warship into this question—and, as ever, he succeeded. My noble friend is right; from my perspective, Peter Mandelson should donate his severance to any charity that campaigns for, or protects, women who have been targeted and have experienced horrendous violence. That is probably the least we are owed.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, is it the Government’s case that Lord Mandelson misled them to get the appointment? Can the Minister give us a couple of examples of what he said to fool the Prime Minister?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord will be able to read any and all correspondence for himself as further tranches are published.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
Further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord West, I understand that the amount that Lord Mandelson is to receive is much less than he asked for. The Minister said that that was to save costs. In many cases, there is surely a commercial reason for settling, but, given that this case is of such constitutional importance, would it not be far better to see whether a court agrees that Lord Mandelson is entitled to any compensation at all?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important and valid point. In this instance, it was considered a sensible move to remove Lord Mandelson from the payroll as quickly as possible.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister quite rightly referred to Epstein as a despicable person, as did the Prime Minister and other members of the Government. However, was he not a despicable person the first time he was put in jail for the appalling abuse of young women? Peter Mandelson stayed in Epstein’s house in America after that, which the Prime Minister knew. A lot of the public will think that that must have been enough to make it clear that he could not be appointed as our ambassador.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that Mr Epstein was a despicable and horrendous human being. The Prime Minister was genuinely not aware of the depth of their continuing relationship, which did not become clear until after the publication of the Bloomberg papers.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, we have time to hear from both Benches. Let us go to the Labour Benches first and then the Conservative Benches.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, this is not the first political appointment to an ambassadorship, including that in Washington, which has not been without controversy. But would the Minister confirm that there are some circumstances in which it is appropriate for there to be a political appointment, rather than one which is selected from Civil Service ranks, provided it is quite clear that that is the responsibility of the Ministers making the appointment?
Secondly, could she confirm that it is quite common for organisations that are facing what may seem quite unreasonable severance requests from individuals to make a judgment about what the cost is of fighting those arrangements and to reach a balanced decision?
In the circumstances where people are criticising the nature of some of the material being published and trying to read too much into it, is it not the case—as Bismarck said, if you ever like laws or sausages, never watch either being made—that this minute inspection, which quite properly the Opposition have demanded should be released, will reveal the imperfections of any process in government, or indeed anywhere else?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. There have been several political appointments, as I have said, including of Members of your Lordships’ House, to ambassadorial and diplomatic roles. Also, there have been direct ministerial appointments made outside this. This is not an unusual process. However, I appreciate it is rare in the diplomatic field. What we have to do is make sure that, as and when political appointees are considered to be appropriate, the nature of our politics should not suggest that we are therefore excluded from other roles, but we should make sure that due process is followed. Given recent events, we have changed due process both on direct ministerial appointments and on any future political appointments in the diplomatic space.
The noble Lord also asked about negotiations around severance payments. I am a former trade union officer and spent a great deal of time negotiating other people’s packages. Negotiations in this space are not unusual, but the noble Lord’s most important point was about imperfections in the system. I am viewing this as an opportunity to reflect on what has gone wrong and what we now need to fix. But let us be clear that there have been significant weaknesses in processes. The onus now is on this Government to strengthen the processes.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)
My diplomatic friends tell me that, if they are up for a sensitive posting abroad, the due diligence that the FCO carries out is a brutal, intrusive and pretty degrading exercise, but a very effective one. Why is the system of due diligence for a political appointment different?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it is not. It is exactly the same in terms of the security and vetting processes. I would like to reassure noble Lords that the vetting process that was undertaken on Peter Mandelson was expedited but followed every step.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, following the comment from my noble friend, and as I mentioned before, the vetting process is not really the issue here. We have Members of this House who are former diplomats and ambassadors, and it is very rare in my recollection that we have had any issues with those who have taken up posts abroad on our behalf. To widen this discussion into codes of conduct for Members in the future and how we must now move towards different vetting procedures is obfuscation.
The points raised by my noble friend Lady Finn on the Front Bench are the questions we need answered. The hub of this matter is that we have a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who knowingly appointed Peter Mandelson, who had remained friends with a convicted paedophile, to represent us in one of the most key posts as ambassador to the United States of America. So, my question to the noble Baroness on the Front Bench is: given the reality that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom clearly has no judgment and that to obfuscate and try to blame everyone else is really inappropriate, will he, on this issue, stand down, because clearly his judgment is lost?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I have tried not to be party political on this, but I find it a little rich to be taking lectures from the Opposition Benches, given what we experienced with “partygate” for years and what Liz Truss’s Government did. I find this very difficult. Also, for the record, the idea that the appointment of a Minister—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Noble Lords can listen to me or not, but the concept that our appointing a Minister to review the standards landscape in the whole is an obfuscation is disappointing to say the least. In terms of the Prime Minister’s responsibilities, he has apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson. He believed Peter Mandelson’s lies in response to the questions put to him. As soon as the Prime Minister became aware of this in September, Peter Mandelson was dismissed promptly.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, we will hear from somebody on the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, we are, hopefully, discussing the concept of rebuilding trust in politics and how we talk to each other. I will answer questions from either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness, but it is for them to decide.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, is it the case that, in the course of the appointment of Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister never spoke to him?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Noble Lords will appreciate that there is ongoing material, which will be published. All of that will be a matter of public record in due course.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this feels a bit “Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil” in the casual way that the Prime Minister followed process in appointing the US ambassador, the then Lord Mandelson. There is a concern that, when the humble Address was passed, former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney still worked for the Government and did not resign until a few days later. Yet Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, has said that everything the Government have has been published. I am concerned that all the documents have not yet been released by the Government. What has happened to the communications between Morgan McSweeney and anybody else involved in this while he was still working for the Prime Minister?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I believe I have said on numerous occasions that this is the first tranche of material that has been published, as did the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. More material will be published in due course. I have answered several questions on that. I look forward to discussing it again with noble Lords when that is done.