Commons Chamber

Wednesday 4th February 2026

(began 1 week, 2 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:34
None Portrait Oral questions: Science, Innovation and Technology
-

Question number one, Mr. Speaker.
11:34
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
None Portrait Q2. What discussions she has had with stakeholders on teenagers' use of social media. (907712)
-

Christine Jardine. are seeing the government play a game of whack a mole. Question two I beg your pardon, Secretary.
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:44
None Portrait Q3. Whether her Department's consultation on children's use of social media will include the implementation of a potential social media ban. (907713)
-

>> Question number three, please, Mr. Speaker. >> Secretary of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State. The government's consultation on children's use of social media and
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:05
12:05
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Prime Minister? >> Prime Minister? >> Mr. speaker, as the House would expect, we went through a process expect, we went through a process that was there was a there was a due diligence exercise, and then due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services. What was not known was the depth, the sheer depth and extent of the relationship. He lied about that to everyone for years. A new information was published in September showing the relationship was materially different to what we'd been led to believe.

When the new information came to light, I sacked him. But we did go through a due diligence exercise. The points, the points that are being put to me were dealt with within that exercise. In response to the humble address this afternoon, I intend to make sure that all of the material is published. Mr. Mr. speaker. Mr. speaker, the only exemptions are national security for prejudice. National security by my first duty is obviously to keep this country safe. And when we drafted humble addresses, we always put an exemption for national security, but also anything would prejudice international relations.

Mr. speaker, you and the House will appreciate that in the course of discussions, country to country, there are very sensitive issues of security, intelligence and trade, which cannot be disclosed without compromising the relationship between the two countries or a third country. Mr. speaker, so that can be totally open with the House. I, I should also disclose that the Metropolitan Police have been in touch with my office this morning to raise issues about anything that would prejudice their investigations.

We're in discussion with them about that, and I hope to be able to update the House. But I do think I should make that clear to the House at this point, because those discussions are ongoing.
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:10
Keir Starmer Portrait Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (Holborn and St Pancras, Labour)
-
-
Prime Minister? >> Prime Minister? >> Mr. speaker, the first exemption is in relation to anything that could compromise national security. That is, that is not a that is not That is, that is not a that is not a small matter. And many members on the benches opposite will know precisely why that needs to be an exemption. When we were drafting humble addresses, when we were sitting over there, we always made sure that exemption was in because we knew how important it was to the then government.

I don't think I've seen a humble address without that in because it. And just to be clear, to vote, to release something that would prejudice national security is wrong in principle. The second exemption is in relation to to things that would prejudice international relations. There will be discussions about security and intelligence and trade, which are highly sensitive to the two countries involved and to third country. But they have to ask themselves whether they want to vote to prejudice our national security.

I don't think they I, I, I don't think, in fairness that they do. But can I reassure the House? Mr. speaker, let me reassure the House that the process for deciding what falls into those categories will not be a political process. It will be led by the Cabinet Secretary, supported by government legal teams. So they will be looking at the question of prejudice. They will be making that decision. The only additional thing I just want to put before the House, because there was a discussion this morning with the Metropolitan Police, is that we are in discussions with them about any material that they're concerned will prejudice their investigation.

Quite an early stage. We're at an early stage of that discussion, but I didn't want to have the House not know that that discussion is going on.
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:15
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:40
12:41
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Portrait Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP (Clapham and Brixton Hill, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move that leave be given to bring a move that leave be given to bring a bill to prohibit giving or receiving a reward for the supply of or for offering to supply human remains or any object partially consisting of human remains, to prohibit advertising the sale, exchange or offer consisting of human remains. To make provision for specified exemptions for those prohibitions and for connected purposes. In short, the buying and selling of human remains.

To most people, Mr. Speaker, the thought of buying a bag full of human bones, a shrunken skull, or a piece of human leather would be unthinkable. In fact, most people would never have thought that this was something they could purchase. But it is. And there is a growing trade in human remains that takes place through social media, on e-commerce sites, at in-person auctions, in curiosity shops, and at oddities markets. Human bones, hair, teeth, skin and other organs are frequently sold by private traders to other private individuals entirely without regulation.

I want to put on record my thanks to the members of the Trading and Sale of Human Remains Task Force of the British Association of Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology, who brought the scale of the abhorrent trade to my attention. They worked tirelessly to confront, expose and ultimately bring an end to the private sale of human remains. I also want to thank a Ford, who with the all party parliamentary group on reparations, produced the Laying Our Ancestors to Rest report, which addresses the ethical, cultural and historical concerns surrounding African ancestral remains, many of which were taken during colonial rule and continue to be displayed and sold at auction today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I must send apologies to members and give warning to anyone with a weak stomach because some of what I am about to describe is truly stomach churning. Members of the task force have documented and shared examples of sales that they have tracked over the years. These include human skulls and skeletal bones, partial or whole shrunken skulls, elongated skulls, a Papa Golf trophy skull, a child shrunken head, and skulls that still have hair and soft tissue attached. They have encountered shops selling lucky dip bags of bones from small boxes for £50, to larger boxes for £90.

They have also come across the sale of wet sample human organs preserved in specimen jars, including foetal hearts and lungs, and even slices of human brain. And for members wondering what on earth someone would want with these remains, there is a substantial market for decorative objects made from human remains. One could purchase a wind chime made from a human skull cap with ribs and clavicles, a candlestick made from stacked human vertebrae, a human finger crucifix pendant, a skull fitted with brass nails for teeth and turned into a lamp, necklaces made of teeth or even wallets fashioned from human leather.

And all of this is entirely legal. I should stress that this is by no means the full extent of the sales that take place. While the Human Remains Task Force does an excellent job tracking what it can. They are undoubtedly hundreds more sales that go unnoticed. And they are, to my knowledge, the only body who actively attempt to police this trade. In 2026, one can sell a piece of human remains or an object partially consisting of human remains, with no checks on how those remains were acquired.

No verification of how old these remains were, who they belonged to, whether consent was given, or what the buyer intends to do with them. The biggest obstacle sellers face is not the law, but the use of rules of social media platforms and e-commerce sites such as Instagram, Facebook, eBay, Gumtree and Etsy. Even then, sellers routinely circumvent those rules through misspelling words, mislabelling real names as replicas or advertising collections without explicitly stating an intent to sell before completing transactions through private messages or in person.

The most serious repercussion they are likely to face is an account suspension, and we all know how easy it is to simply set up a new one. Ultimately, the only hurdle sellers face is platform moderation. They face no legal barrier at all. In-person sellers face even fewer obstacles, with no oversight of the human remains sold in curiosity shops, flea markets or satanic markets. The UK is not wholly devoid of regulation, however. The Human Tissue Act 2004 makes it an offence to hold human remains under 100 years old for certain scheduled purposes without a licence, but it doesn't expressly prohibit commercial sale beyond very, very narrow circumstances.

It is silent on the sale of remains as curiosities or private objects. Once outside regulated contexts, at present we have stronger licensing rules around animal remains than we do around some human remains. This is what my bill seeks to address. Beyond this being an incredible, incredibly disturbing trade Mr Speaker, there is clear moral and clear moral and ethical case for banning it. There is no reliable way to establish how these remains were acquired, whether they were looted or grave robbed, their age, or whether any consent was given by the individual themselves or by their relatives or descendants.

During the colonial era, ancestral remains from communities across the world were stolen from battlefields, looted from graves, taken as trophies or curiosities, or used in a now discredited racist pseudoscience of phrenology which sought to claim inherent inferiority based on skull shape. Many remains are still in circulation, are sold as so-called antique medical skeletons, imported in their tens of thousands during the 20th century, until export bans from India in 1985 and China in the 2000, that I have been informed that underground trade continues.

Imagine seeing your ancestors body parts listed at auction as decorative objects. This was the case when the skull of a tribesman from Nagaland was auctioned online in the UK, as part of a curious collectors sale, one of thousands of items taken by British colonial administrators. In fact, this has been the case for many African and Asian remains, as outlined by outlined by the Laying Our Ancestors to Rest report long after colonial rule and our acceptance that racism is wrong, we continue to deny them dignity even in death.

Now, some may argue that remains that are hundreds of years old raise fewer concerns. Yet there is good reason to believe that some remains being sold are far more recent than claimed. Labelling them as antiques doesn't make it so. In serious questions remain about provenance. A case currently before the US courts involves a man accused of grave robbing and selling remains online. While we have not seen such a case here, it would be naive to assume that similar practices would not be taking place.

I should be clear that there are legitimate circumstances this bill would not prohibit. For example, cost recovery for medical research, teaching and scientific use would remain regulated through existing licensing and ethical frameworks. Nor would it outlaw the respectful bereavement practices such as memorial jewellery containing, for example, a lock of hair where consent is clear. The bill carefully distinguishes between consented memorial items and the commercial sale of provenance remains. Mr. speaker, I believe there is a universal there is universal agreement right across this House that the sale of human remains, particularly where their origins, age and acquisition are unverified, should not be allowed to continue.

And while import and export restrictions exist, a legislative oversight has allowed domestic sale to remain perfectly legal. This bill corrects that House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. OK, the question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK, the question is that the hon. Members have leave to bring in the bill. The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in hon. Member have leave to bring in the bill. As many of that opinion say I the contrary. No, I think the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say I the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare to bring in the bill? Sian Berry Carla Denyer. Jeremy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sian Berry Carla Denyer. Jeremy Corbyn. Diane Abbott. Apsana Begum Dawn Butler Zarah Sultana Clive Lewis. And myself, Mr. speaker. Lewis. And myself, Mr. speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Silly. Bell Ribeiro-Addy. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Human Remains (Prohibition of Sale, Purchasing and advertising bill. Second Reading. What day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday 27th February.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday 27th February. Friday, the 27th of February. We now come to the Opposition Day now come to the Opposition Day motion on Lord Mandelson. I inform the House I have selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister. I now call the opposition spokesperson to move the motion. Sir Secretary of State Alex Burghart.
12:51
None Portrait
-

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for allowing time for this Opposition Day debate in this 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 make money, and that money was used to run his paedophilic prostitution ring. Those who broke the law to give that information helped make him rich, helped make him powerful and share in some of the responsibility for the crimes that were committed, because they gave him the power that he abused.

And 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 of the rules. It seems that the more this thread is pulled on, the more that network unravels and the more shameful the whole episode appears. I think generally, Mr. Speaker, there are three main things that must concern this House.

The first is the now emerging conduct of Peter Mandelson, when he was a member of the last Labour administration between 2009 and 2010. I understand that that is now subject to a police investigation, and it's good to see that the government is cooperating fully with that investigation. And I'm sure that when the police have finished their inquiries, there will be future opportunities for for us to discuss that in this House. But the second issue of similar import is the judgement of the Prime Minister in appointing Peter Mandelson to our most senior diplomatic role.

Yeah, I'm happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to him giving way. And he's making an excellent point. And isn't it a surprise not to see the Prime Minister himself answering these questions? Because answering these questions? Because at the end of the day, he is the one who made the decision to one who made the decision to appoint Mandelson as the Bassador. He has to therefore explain his decision making process, what he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decision making process, what he Well. I think in fairness, it's not it's not a problem for Mr. Bercow.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's not a problem for Mr. Bercow. It is up to government to. I'm glad it's not my problem, Mr. Speaker. The look, I, my hon. Friend, is right in this regard. It was absolutely the Prime Minister's responsibility that this man was appointed. And one of the things we are trying to dig into today is exactly what he knew. And and if any information was kept from him,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

who kept it from him, happy to give way to my honour. I'm very grateful to. My friend for. Giving way. This is a serious

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Giving way. This is a serious issue. He's dealing with it appropriately. He would have heard as I do. The Prime Minister earlier as I do. The Prime Minister earlier referred to the fact that the extent of the relationship of extent of the relationship of Mandelson and Epstein wasn't known. Does he not share what was the common view at the time, amongst common view at the time, amongst many cross-party, the fact that there was any relationship should have precluded Peter from appointment to be His Majesty's ambassador to Washington?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, well, my hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, one that's obviously central to our considerations today and one to which I'm going to refer return. So there was the conduct of Peter Mandelson whilst he was a member of Mandelson whilst he was a member of the last Labour government. There was the judgement of the Prime Minister in appointing him. But Minister in appointing him. But there was also something I wish to touch on this afternoon, the conduct of Peter Mandelson, whilst

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conduct of Peter Mandelson, whilst he was our ambassador in Washington. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will happily give way to my hon. Friend. Can I, can I commend the the Shadow Minister and the Conservative Party for bringing this forward for consideration? It's absolutely incredible what we're listening to, what's happening when it comes to a full investigation. It doesn't have to be the ambassador. And all those years, the five years that he was years, the five years that he was the EU Trade Commissioner. Can I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that suggest to the hon.

Gentleman that that needs to be part of the investigation as well, a full investigation and every iota, every every tape is crossed, every. I was dotted for Peter Mandelson and that's what this House wants.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's what this nation wants. I think my hon. Friend, as ever, is entirely right. I say the more that we pull on this thread, the more we seem to find. And I think that all of Peter Mandelson's that all of Peter Mandelson's dealings as a politician and a businessman should now be laid out for the House and the country to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the House and the country to consider. I will give way one more time than I intend to make a little bit of progress. I'm very. Grateful to the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to the. Shadow Minister for allowing me to intervene. The Foreign Affairs Committee, myself included, had called for Lord Mandelson to appear before us on multiple occasions to explain the circumstances and process of his unusual appointment. He did not adhere to that request. I wondered, does the Shadow Minister agree with me that his failure to become, before the committee sends a signal that the government wanted to hide something, that there were issues in the appointment and vetting process, and that had there been transparency at the early stages of his appointment, we would have avoided sending someone who was wholly unfit to be one of the UK's most senior diplomatic appointments.
12:56
Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)
-
-
Well, I think that's a very significant representation from a member of the committee. And it member of the committee. And it must be said that a failure of transparency at each stage in this process appears to have compounded the problems that the government is now dealing with. So what do we know now about the Prime Minister's judgement and the process that was going on in number ten 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 it in the public domain, but the the truth is that in January 2024, Financial Times journalist told the Prime Minister about it. We and you and the Prime Minister admitted it in the House today that it was part of the briefing note that he received from the Cabinet Office proprietary and ethics team. Now, we fully expect that report that was compiled by that team, the due diligence report to appear for this House to consider. And it's it was reports of it appear in the New Statesman this morning.

We're told that the report contains warnings of potential conflicts of interest surrounding Global Counsel, the lobbying firm which Peter Mandelson established and in which he retained about a 28% stake. We know that Global Counsel had Russian and Chinese clients, which, according to the reports in the press this morning, the proprietary and ethics team had serious concerns about. And we know, or at least we are told in the press that the diligence report also referred to Mandelson's ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, clearly stating that Mandelson's relationship had gone over the point of conviction, and also drawing attention to the fact that Mandelson had used Epstein's hospitality in both America and also in Paris, whilst the latter

**** Possible New Speaker ****

was in prison. I'll give way to the hon. Gentleman, the honourable. Gentleman is. Absolutely right in the summary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely right in the summary of all the misdoings of Jeffrey Epstein. But we heard some shocking revelations during Prime Minister's revelations during Prime Minister's Questions. In fact, the Prime Minister knew about Mandelson's relationship when he was appointed relationship when he was appointed as ambassador. Does he agree that the Prime Minister's position is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now becoming increasingly untenable? I think that there is no doubt that the Prime Minister's judgement is being called into the sharpest question at this moment. You know that we really and it is becoming harder to see how any of us can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rely on his judgement into the future. I will give me one more time and then I. Then I must make. Some Andrew Murrison.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Some Andrew Murrison. The Prime Minister's judgement is most certainly. In the frame. What about his candour?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he remember on the 16th of. September, the Prime Minister himself. Introduced the Public Office Accountability Bill, which Office Accountability Bill, which added at its heart has a duty of candour. Do we see candour displayed at Prime Minister's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Questions today? Alex Burghart. Well, as my right hon. Friend knows, the the government developed an appetite for candour and then lost its appetite. That that bill has disappeared. Into into the aether. I think too much candour would do this government, do this government harm the and so I I'm not going to give away any I will give way in a moment. But I would like to make a little bit of progress. And so it was also reported this morning in the press that in September.

Following Peter Mandelson's sacking, that there was a Cabinet Office investigation into any further wrongdoing. And I wonder if the Paymaster General could confirm whether he's aware of such a report, but 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. Now I fully understand this side of the House. We fully understand that the government has a duty to protect national security and our international relationships. Of course it does.

But it must also understand that security and our international affairs are completely entwined with this issue. And the Paymaster General will have heard, 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 paedophiles links with the Russian intelligence services. As he said, more and more leads, more and more information, more and more commentary all relate to the suspicion that this unprecedented paedophilia scandal was co-organised by the Russian intelligence services.

Thousands of the documents released over the weekend refer to Putin. Thousands more to Moscow. We know that Epstein recruited young Russian women. We know that he held parties in Russia in some emails. I understand Epstein said he could offer and I quote insight on Donald Trump to Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign Minister. This is all of the ingredients of classic kompromat, and it cannot. Consideration of these issues cannot be deprived of this House. In the case of the Mandelson papers.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I will happily give way to my right hon. Julian Lewis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Julian Lewis. It has been for years a matter of mystery and speculation, where of mystery and speculation, where Epstein acquired his vast wealth. Epstein acquired his vast wealth. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Russian connection may

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that the Russian connection may provide the definitive answer to that mystery? My right hon. Friend is quite right that this is exactly one of the issues that must now be investigated and investigated very seriously, not just by this government, but by our allies in other jurisdictions. Because whilst we don't yet know for certain where the money came, how the money came to Epstein, we do now know where some of it went, and understanding its ultimate source will help us construct a picture of this very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

complex and devious web. Will. My hon. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way to my right hon. Oliver Dowden. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I think at the giving way, and I think at the heart of what we're talking about here is do we accept this amendment here is do we accept this amendment from the government opposite about a national security and international relations? And he and international relations? And he and I have both served in the Cabinet Office, and I'm sure he shares my sympathy with the need to protect national security.

But there is a vast difference between protecting national security, for example, in direct intelligence reports from agents on the ground or intercept and subjective judgements made about things that may embarrass national security or may embarrass international relations. And that's why the Leader of the Opposition was precisely correct to say we need some independent mechanism. So why on earth can't we agree that the ISC should look at each of these exemptions? And if they fail, it passes that threshold? Fine. We'll accept it because we need to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protect national security. But it can't be to spare the party. Opposite's blushes. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Well, my right hon. Friend who was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and who knows more about national security than almost anyone in this House, is absolutely right. Because what is what is happening here is that the happening here is that the government's judgement and its behaviour is what is under investigation. It cannot be the investigation. It cannot be the case that the government can then decide what is disclosed. And fortunately, fortunately for the House, there are mechanisms available to us, not least the ISC, which would do a very good job on behalf of the government of working with them to decide what information could and couldn't be released.

But I must say, on the issue of humble address built into the humble address mechanism itself is an understanding that national security is protected. There is no need for this amendment. I promise to give way to my old adversary from Islington North first, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Honourable. Jeremy Corbyn. I thank the right hon. Member for giving way, and I compliment him on the content of compliment him on the content of the speech he's made so far. This inquiry will have massive inquiry will have massive ramifications. It's an inquiry into the gilded circle surrounding Mandelson, which extends very Mandelson, which extends very broadly around this House and the civil service, business, community, media and internationally. Isn't it media and internationally. Isn't it time we had a novel form of inquiry which is not undertaken solely by Parliament or the civil service, but a much broader, more public inquiry, which can look into the whole issue, because this is a basic corruption of our political system that we're looking at in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

behaviour of Peter Mandelson. Alex Baker. Well, the right hon. Gentleman appears to be correct in that there appears to be correct in that there is there is certainly an indication that serious corruption may have that serious corruption may have taken place. And in the light of that, the House must must consider very closely what the best means of very closely what the best means of getting to the bottom of all of these relationships and all of these influences will be, I promise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these influences will be, I promise to give way to the hon. Lady. Member for giving way. And I think the House is getting a lesson that many families in Northern Ireland have had for decades. Families like that of Sean Brown and the victims of Stakeknife, that national security is routinely deployed to cover the blushes of the UK government. I appreciate that the member is now arriving at this point, and would he support a wider review of his party and the government's application of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

national security to all sorts of disclosure cases? Alex Burghart.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alex Burghart. Well, I think without wishing to be distracted from the the motion at play, I've actually seen Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, of all parties of successive governments, try very hard to ensure that there is maximum disclosure for the people of Northern Ireland, whilst ensuring that national security is not compromised. I am afraid I see things through a slightly different prism. I will give way one more progress.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Mr. speaker, there is a well-worn route for dealing with these matters for dealing with these matters through a humble addresses and otherwise, but previous humble addresses when this party, the party of government was in opposition, would name sometimes a opposition, would name sometimes a select committee, and I was on the receiving end of that as then chair of the Public Accounts Committee. I of the Public Accounts Committee. I am just genuinely want to ask the hon.

Gentleman why the government, the opposition did not put in the humble address that this should go humble address that this should go to a select committee, because I still think there are ways to use the Select Committee corridor in order to scrutinise anything that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

may be more sensitive than can go into the public domain. So I'm very glad that the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I'm very glad that the hon. Lady agrees with us that the ISC should be used in this context. I know that there is. I'm very glad that there is agreement with between her and me that the frontbench should be using the ISC frontbench should be using the ISC in order to in order to act in this way. And I hope that and I hope that other members opposite will that other members opposite will take the same view as this extremely experienced parliamentarian.

I will give way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

extremely. Grateful to my hon. Friend since

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he mentions the Intelligence. And Security. Committee, of which I'm a member. Can I put to him this? The purpose Can I put to him this? The purpose of the ISC is not to act as some filter to decide what should go to the rest of Parliament, it's to act on behalf of Parliament to consider material that Parliament for good reason, cannot see. This is a motion about whether or not the government should disclose all the relevant material to Parliament in this context.

Isn't it a perfectly usable and familiar mechanism for Parliament to use in circumstances such as this? For the government to disclose anything it does not believe the whole chamber can see to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right hon. Friend speaks from a position of experience, and and he's entirely right. You know, this he's entirely right. You know, this is the House is very fortunate to have the ISC, and this is one of the functions that it can perform. the functions that it can perform. The government can have reassurance on national security, and the House can have reassurance that no can have reassurance that no material is being kept from it, that the government might find that the government might find embarrassing.

And so I ask in his remarks, I ask the Paymaster General, you who I know you know, will have had nothing to do with this. And, you know, I know as a man of integrity to think very seriously about the options of gisting the role that ISC can play in that and and make sure that the government is not marking its own homework, because it's very important that our constituents and this House have confidence in what the government provides us. And now move on briefly, Mr.

Speaker, before I hand over to other members of the House to the conduct of Lord Mandelson whilst he was our ambassador in Washington, and I think that this is very relevant for our debate today because it exposes, again, the Prime Minister's lack of judgement in appointing Peter Mandelson as our ambassador. There is obviously now very strong evidence to suggest that Mandelson behaved entirely inappropriately when he was a Secretary of State in the last Labour government. But there are now equally big questions outstanding about what was happening in 2025, in Washington.

And this, as I say, is is relevant now on the 27th of February, 2025, the Prime Minister, whilst in Washington, visited the American data and AI company Palantir at its headquarters. The meeting did not appear in the Prime Minister's register of visits. It only came to light later. Now, Palantir, we should remember or remind ourselves, was a client of Global Counsel, the company in which Peter Mandelson had a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir received from this government a £240 million deal.

compete.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That deal was granted by Direct Award. Given the allegations now Award. Given the allegations now coming to light about Mandelson's conduct. Can the Minister assure the House that the Cabinet the House that the Cabinet Secretary will review the circumstances around the award of circumstances around the award of that contract and assure himself that there are no other such contracts, no other undisclosed contracts, no other undisclosed meetings, that the government is going to go through? All of the communications that Mandelson sent out whilst he was ambassador messages, we must assume, some of which were sent to old business contacts, potential few business contacts and so on.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained an unhealthy relationship with a man who was a convicted paedophile and he appointed him to the role of ambassador anyway. Everybody in this House should be shocked by it. It must be concluded that had the Prime Minister been pressed on that point at the time, the appointment would not have been made. But the Prime Minister knew, his aides knew, and the appointment was made anyway. What else did he know? Only after this humble address.

Only if the government treats with it in good faith will we know that. I very much hope that it is not the case, that we find that there are gaps in our security and vetting process. If there are, the government will be able to fix them. But I think it's also likely that we'll see that. There were reports that consistently raised concerns that were swept away, and it will then be the duty of the government to disclose who swept them away and why.

Ultimate responsibility must rest with the Prime Minister. It is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time for him to take responsibility. Yeah, yeah. I call the Minister to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Nick Thomas-Symonds. Thank you, Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker, and I do. I beg to move the amendment amended motion in the name of the Prime Minister, my name, name of the Prime Minister, my name, and indeed write the names of right hon. Friends. Mr. speaker, members will be aware that the government will be aware that the government came to the House Monday for an update following the release of 3 million pages of documents by the US Department of Justice regarding Jeffrey Epstein. As the government said Monday.

And I reiterate now, Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted paedophile and a despicable individual who revelled in abusing the vulnerable and destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. I will, I will give way. Let me just complete my introduction remarks. Then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. What he did was unforgivable. Every time his crimes are in the public eye, victims must relive their trauma. And his victims are at the forefront of my mind. And I'm sure they're at the forefront of all honourable and right hon.

Gentlemen and ladies minds in this debate. As the Prime Minister has said, anyone with relevant information must come forward and cooperate with investigations so Jeffrey Epstein's victims can get the justice they've been denied for so long. As for Peter Mandelson, his decision to maintain a close relationship with the convicted paedophile, including discussing private government business, isn't just wrong, it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Flynn. I thank the Minister for giving way. I am, however, curious. Earlier we heard the Prime Minister state that he knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained a Mandelson had maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Did the Minister also know, and if Did the Minister also know, and if so, did he express any concerns to the Prime Minister at that time the Prime Minister at that time about his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So, Mr. Mr Speaker. On the second point, I made no personal role in the appointment process. But as the Prime Minister said, the depth and extent of Peter said, the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson's relationship was not known at the time of his appointment. As soon as that came

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to light, the Prime Minister acted decisively and sacked Peter Mandelson. Angela Rayner.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Angela Rayner. I thank the Minister for giving way and given the public disgust and the sickening behaviour of Peter Mandelson and the importance of transparency in 2022, I proposed a humble address seeking information about PPE, which the party opposite was listed, and my hon. Friend, the Member for Hackney South, mentioned just before. Should we not have the ISC not have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the same role now in keeping public confidence in the process? Let me pick up this point, Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me pick up this point, Mr. Speaker, because I know a number of honourable right hon. Members have raised this. I think in the first raised this. I think in the first instance, let me say that this process now is going to be conducted and led by the Cabinet Secretary on unimpeachable integrity. I mean, the gentleman shouts cover up at the Cabinet Secretary. He really should Secretary. He really should consider that remark, I think. But secondly, it will be conducted by Cabinet Office lawyers.

Now the House is asking quite fairly a broader question, as my right hon. Friend, about scrutiny. There's a role as the chair of the Public Accounts Committee around House Select Committee scrutinise this. There's existing powers for the ISC in terms of scrutinising this. I'm hearing what the House is saying, and I will take that point away. I'll take I'll take one more intervention and I'll come to the right. Then I'll have to make some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

progress. Girlfriend. Can I can I say. It's a disappointment? Neither the opposition or the government the opposition or the government had a reference to the important role that the ISC could have in this basis. Can I say to him, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I've also spoken to the chair, the Lord Beamish, and we've heard from the deputy chair before heard from the deputy chair before that we feel the intelligence community should be involved in this and help this process, not on this and help this process, not on behalf of Parliament.

So I would urge the right, my right hon. Friend, to speak to number ten to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ensure that we get that, and that happens quickly here. I think I've already said I'll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I've already said I'll take the point away. I think he knows from our personal dealings on a different matter, my respect to the Intelligence and Security the Intelligence and Security Committee and its work. I'll give way to the former deputy Prime Minister. Then I'll have to make some progress.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some progress. Thank you. I thank the Minister for giving way. The point here is not about impugning the integrity not about impugning the integrity of the Cabinet Secretary. The point here is about confidence in this House. And I think the the temperature in the House seems to be that most people feel that involving the ISC will give both this House a more importantly, the public confidence about this process. Now, it sounds as if the Minister is sympathetic to this point.

Can he just confirm that he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is sympathetic to that point and he will be making the case to Downing Street for this tweak? Yeah, Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, Minister. Mr. speaker, I wasn't accusing the right hon. Gentleman of impugning the the Cabinet Secretary. impugning the the Cabinet Secretary. The point I was making was that the process is being official, led and indeed then being decided upon by indeed then being decided upon by Cabinet Office lawyers. The broader point that the House is making, I can do no more than say, I hear can do no more than say, I hear what you're saying, and I will take that point away, but can I just come back? I'll give way once more to the chair, but I really must

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make some progress. I'm grateful to the Minister, and he knows that this House knows that he's an hon. Gentleman in every sense of that term. Right. But the mood of the House is very clear, and my right hon. And clear, and my right hon. And learned friend has set out, as have others, the role of the ISC and the others, the role of the ISC and the expectation that it discharges the serious and sensitive matters on behalf of the House, and that the government has has confidence government has has confidence during the course of this debate.

Can I invite him to go back to number ten and not and to take advice and to not move his amendment this afternoon? I think that would reflect the will of the House and would allow people to start moving these issues forward, to move it today would, I would suggest, be a retrograde step for the government and its reputation?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. On the first point, as I said to the former Deputy Prime Minister, I'll take the point away. But where I'll take the point away. But where I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, I'll come back to it in a moment, is the importance of the amendment because there are really important public policy issues I want to deal with in respect of that. But let me just return to the that. But let me just return to the thrust of my. I will give way in a moment.

No government Minister, let's be clear of any political party should have behaved in the party should have behaved in the way Peter Mandelson did, and it was absolutely disgraceful. The alleged
13:19
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-
leaking of crucial documents to help millionaires profit in the middle of the global crash, lying middle of the global crash, lying to contemporaries, lying to the Prime Minister, lying to the public is both shameful and shameless. Let is both shameful and shameless. Let me just finish this point before I will take some more interventions in a moment. Peter Mandelson will in a moment. Peter Mandelson will now account for his actions and conduct. That is why the Cabinet conduct. That is why the Cabinet Office has referred this matter to the police and Mr Speaker.

The Metropolitan Police have released a statement confirming, and I quote, that they have received a number of reports into alleged misconduct in public office, including a referral from the UK government. And the statement also confirmed that the Metropolitan Police have started a criminal investigation in relation to potential misconduct in public office offences, and that the police will, I quote, continue to assess all relevant information brought to our attention as part of this investigation and won't be commenting any further at this time.

Now, the House will understand that on that particular development, it would not be appropriate for me to intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, no! Order, order! We're getting very carried away about the getting very carried away about the way the Metropolitan Police has been thrown around. I meant to have been contacted, I have not been been contacted, I have not been contacted. And I have the house. The house will understand that I am The house will understand that I am not responsible for the Minister, for the ministerial answers. Let's just put that on the record and let's see if we can tie this up a little bit.

The avoidance of doubt, I stand there is an ongoing police investigation into this case. However, no charges have been brought. The House Subjudice resolution does not apply in the context. It is up to the Ministers how they reply, but the House rules do not prevent them from answering fully. So please, let's not hide behind that. Something's not factual. So let's get this on the record. And I still haven't had the phone call.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I, could I just say in respect of that, Mr. Speaker, I hear precisely what you say, and I hear precisely what you say, and I entirely accept that interpretation of the subdued judiciary rules. I'm certainly not hiding behind it. And indeed, I will come to some remarks

**** Possible New Speaker ****

indeed, I will come to some remarks about this in a moment. Hold on. Maybe I can help a little bit, but I think the answer little bit, but I think the answer was that we can't do this because there's a police investigation, and I think we've got to recognise that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is not a reason. So please, let's not play off each other. I've made my point from the chair. Completely accept that, Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. I'll take one intervention here. Then I'll take one over here. Chris Vince. Thank you. Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I made this point on Monday, but I think it's really, really important to make again, the vast majority of make again, the vast majority of members in this House and the other House come here to represent our constituencies. And I think people across the House would recognise I do my best to represent Harlow as much as I possibly can. Would much as I possibly can. Would Harlow Mr Speaker would, would the. With the Secretary of State agree with me that the reason the case of Peter Mandelson is so damning and upsets so many people across this House is clearly this individual.

When he was in this place and potentially when he was in this place, but certainly when he was in the other place, was not representing the people he was supposed to representing, but representing instead a vile paedophile. So would he agree with me that the reason strength is so strong across the house is because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually he's letting down all of us. Ministers and the public rightly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ministers and the public rightly demands the highest standards from those in office. They demand the highest standards from Ministers. We should be held to the highest standards. And my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Peter Mandelson fell far, far short of those fell far, far short of those standards. His behaviour has been revealed to be appalling and as the Prime Minister has said, the Prime

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister has said he will. Not. Order, please. The Minister is giving way. He will give way. But you can't stay on your feet all shouting give way, give way please. Let's give the Minister some time

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and he will tell you when he feels in the mood today. Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll take the hon. Member for Bromsgrove

**** Possible New Speaker ****

take the hon. Member for Bromsgrove intervention. I thank the Minister for giving, for giving way. Given that at the point immediately prior to Peter, Peter Mandelson's appointment as Peter Mandelson's appointment as ambassador, the UK had a respected ambassador already in the United States. And Dame Karen Pierce, why States. And Dame Karen Pierce, why it was that the government decided, given the known abhorrence of both Jeffrey Epstein and the appalling previous judgement of Peter Mandelson, the government still decided that, on balance, it was a risk worth taking to appoint paedophile adjacent Peter Mandelson to the post of ambassador.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, can I pay tribute to Karen Pierce, who I think represents the finest who I think represents the finest of our foreign service? Secondly, governments do make political appointments to these posts. That's happened. That is long standing happened. That is long standing practice to a small number of posts. And the Prime Minister has already said if he knew, if he knew then said if he knew, if he knew then what he knew now, Peter Mandelson wouldn't have been anywhere near the government.

I will give way to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government. I will give way to my. Den Meg Hillier. I'm no longer chair of the Public Accounts Committee. Mr. speaker. Mr. speaker, it seems that we are in something of a muddle here. Had the opposition named the ISC in the humble address, as in the past committees, then there would have been no debate in this House. But would the Minister agree that to put all information openly in the public domain could have risks? But there are well warned filters through Parliament, through the Select Committee corridor, and there are various committees that could have locus in this space to properly and sensitively handle information which has in my time, never leaked from a committee.

In order to make sure that we on the committee corridor, on behalf of Parliament, are holding the government to account, because I think there is consensus, Mr. Speaker, that everybody wants as much information as possible in the public domain so that we can get to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bottom of what has happened in this egregious situation. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about those existing mechanisms of scrutiny, and I give mechanisms of scrutiny, and I give her credit for the work she does. I've always said on the point that's been raised, I will take it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that's been raised, I will take it away. I'll give way to my own. I thank the Minister for giving way, and on the point of Peter Mandelson letting people down, the Mandelson letting people down, the people that have been let down most by this are the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. And does he agree that we Epstein. And does he agree that we wouldn't be discussing this disgraceful situation if it hadn't been that people didn't listen to the women that came forward in the first place, didn't listen to victims in the first place, and instead listen to men in power, men with deep pockets and men advising those in power.

So don't we need to put the victims at the heart of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this, and not just ourselves here? My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is the victims, the women and girls who were victims of the trafficking and appalling, abhorrent behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein, who should be at the forefront of my mind. I'll make a bit of progress, then I will give bit of progress, then I will give way a few times. Again, let me just say, Mr. Speaker, not only has the Cabinet Office referred the Cabinet Office referred the evidence about Peter Mandelson's time as a Minister to the police, but we are also taking action going forward in the Hillsborough law.

That is before this House, to introduce a duty of candour for all public servants. That is going to make it an offence to lie to the public, making it a criminal offence, do anything but act with openness and integrity when things go wrong. And that is the action this government is taking to prevent future cover ups and injustices. A statement of intention that we want to enshrine that capacity to speak truth to power. As my hon. Friend said, the voice of victims being at the forefront not, as in this case, a group of powerful men putting an end to the situation where powerful people are able to avoid justice.

Now, the government should rightly be tested and questioned by this House. I one moment I will give way, the hon. Gentleman. But the action that is taken by this government is what is crucial now. And earlier this week, the Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Secretary to review all available information regarding Peter Mandelson's contacts with Jeffrey Epstein during his period as a government Minister and to report back as a matter of urgency. After an initial review of some documents, the Cabinet Secretary made the decision to refer the matter to the police with the Prime Minister's support and I should say the government stands ready to provide any support the police require as part of their investigation.

On that note, I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to the Father of the House. Edward Leigh father, the house. We're all agreed on the character We're all agreed on the character of Lord Mandelson, but I'm not sure we're going to make much progress if we just repeating ourselves on if we just repeating ourselves on that, because we all agree the reputation of the House is at stake, reputation of the House is at stake, and what the opposition has to do is hold the Prime Minister to is hold the Prime Minister to account.

Now, I've listened very carefully to the Prime Minister today, the Leader of the Opposition, I listen to the Minister. He's been asked the Prime Minister, been asked on repeated occasions whether, when this appointment was known, the Prime Minister knew that Mandelson had continued his relationship with Epstein after the first conviction. It's a very direct question. The reputation of the House is at stake. Will the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister now answer that question? Prime Minister answer this. The Prime Minister's questions. He was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Prime Minister's questions. He was lied to about the depth and extent of the relationship. Jonathan Brash.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jonathan Brash. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand here acutely aware that I am the Member of Parliament for Hartlepool Member of Parliament for Hartlepool and I think today I speak for Hartlepool. When I look at the Hartlepool. When I look at the evidence before us and say undoubtedly that Peter Mandelson is a traitor and that on that basis it is important that the public have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

confidence in this process. Would he agree? Yes, I absolutely agree and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I absolutely agree and I think the hon. Gentleman expresses the anger felt by many across the House, and I'll make some more House, and I'll make some more progress than I will give way a few times. Again, no, I will make some more progress and I will give way more progress and I will give way again. Now, members will recall back in September, in light of the additional information in emails additional information in emails written by Peter Mandelson released at the time, the Prime Minister then asked the then Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador with immediate effect, and the emails released showed that the nature and extent of Peter Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different to that was known at the time of his appointment.

The issue over which Peter Mandelson was withdrawn from Washington was information not available at the time, and the due diligence was done and a due diligence process was conducted by the Cabinet Office and a security vetting process. They are different were carried out. Since entering government, we have already taken action to strengthen the process for making direct appointments for ambassadors specifically and making direct ministerial appointments more generally. I will give way to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

grateful. To my hon. Friend for giving way. There's clearly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's clearly. Concern about the government. Amendment. And that it doesn't. Go far enough. In terms of scrutiny of those documents that might be withheld. And across the House there is a consensus growing that the the consensus growing that the the Intelligence and Security Committee could provide a way forward for scrutiny of those independent scrutiny of those independent scrutiny of those documents. Is there a possibility that we could have a manuscript amendment to that effect that we can all join, join together and vote for so that we can take this serious matter

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward? I might be yeah, the manuscript amendment will be a matter for the amendment will be a matter for the chair, and I'm the chair will be sympathetic to what the House would need to ensure that we get the best. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Well, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the House always takes me at my word when I say that I will take these matters away. So the the the these matters away. So the the the Cabinet Secretary will be taking independent advice on the decisions he is taking through this process. The Cabinet Secretary intends this to take two forms. Firstly, having the advice of an independent KC throughout the process and secondly, scrutiny of the approach he is taking by the ISC.

I hope that will give the House the reassurance that it needs. Now I take, let me come to, I will give, I will in a moment. Let me just make a bit more progress. I will give way again. Let me just take the opposition motion and I have some experience in the past of drafting humble addresses on different matters in this House myself. Of course, there is an extensive nature to it. I think the House recognises that it's imperative that the government protects sensitive information that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could damage national security or relations with our international Snell. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank. The Minister for giving way, and I remember the humble addresses that were tabled in this place that were tabled in this place during those Brexit years. He will know that in opposition we never felt the need to put national security or international relations security or international relations on the face of the motion itself, because that was an implied protection. So can I ask the Minister two things. One, he's just Minister two things. One, he's just said, quite helpfully, that the ISC will be involved in scrutinising the process.

Does he mean the process that the Cabinet Secretary looks at documents, or will they themselves be able to see documents? And I think we all understand what he means by national security, but could he give a definition by what he means by international relations?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because that's quite a broad term. Having some clarity around that would be welcome. Yes, Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, Minister. Yeah. I mean, I mean, as my I think my hon. Friend has similar memories of the that particular memories of the that particular Parliament. But, you know, for example, on the the motion on Lebedev, for example, we we included in the motion in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions may be solely for such redactions may be solely for the purposes of national security. So we did do that. And I and in terms of the, the humble addresses that I was involved in drafting, I was I was very, very precise about it.

Before I come to the scope of the motion, I will I've got two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll, I'll, yes. I'm extremely grateful to him for giving way. And I know the Minister takes the role of the ISC very seriously, and I appreciate that he is trying to help the House that he is trying to help the House with what he has just said. However, he will appreciate the difficulty the House has is it needs to decide the House has is it needs to decide what to do in relation to the motion before it. Today, members on both sides will have to decide how both sides will have to decide how they should cast their vote.

So although there is some reassurance in the Intelligence and Security Committee being involved with the Cabinet secretaries process, that will not be possible before we have to reach a decision on this motion. The principle here is surely this that the whole House cannot see everything. I have sympathy with the Minister on this, both in relation to national security material and rather more sympathy. I'm bound to say that my colleague on the front bench, in relation to material which may be sensitive relating to international relations, but following on from the comments that have been made on his own side, including from the right hon.

Lady for Hackney and Shoreditch, isn't the answer here that the opposition frontbench will accept that its motion will include the concept that if material is sensitive, it is supplied to the ISC only and not to the whole house, but that everything should be disclosed to the house either via that route or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

via a route to the whole house. Absolutely, exactly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely, exactly. Beyond the deadline to amend the motion, which is a familiar situation he and I have found himself in before. But what I just himself in before. But what I just want to say very clearly, and I hope that the House takes my previous answer on this as good previous answer on this as good faith that I have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deadline has passed for amendment. Can you just. Can the speaker just confirm what you've just said to the House, that you would be sympathetic to a manuscript motion that wouldn't be subject to that deadline?
13:36
13:36
13:36
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Rt Hon Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Torfaen, Labour)
-
-
some progress. I might come back. Look, that's why the government has tabled the amendment it has for publication of documents unless they prejudice national security. I know I've been asked this specific question about international question about international relations because of course, such documents might contain information about our relationship with our international allies, how we have approached them. That is obviously important for governments to keep are, of course, confidential because it's in the national interest. There's also the issue that I am very conscious of, of not at all hiding behind the cloak of the Met Police investigation.

I'm definitely not seeking to do that. But of course, we will also have to bear in mind documents that might prejudice that investigation. And that's something we will continue to speak to the met about now. Mr. Mr. speaker, we will, of course, do all we can to comply with the motion as amended, and we will also update the House accordingly. And indeed, on this moment, on this moment, I also want to say to the House that whilst that process of going through a significant amount of documents might take a little time, it is also important that the government starts that process of disclosure to the extent it can do today, and that is what the government will do in response to the debate and the very reasonable questions that have been put across all.

I am someone who rewards effort and as the hon. Gentleman has put in such effort, we'll allow. Can I can I return the compliment by just saying to the Minister how much I admire his ability and generosity in giving way? I think I think he's doing an exceptional job in relation to the government amendment. Amendment a I understand where he is coming from. And can I just describe perhaps a thing which he may wish to see pass through the eyes, but can't be made publicly available? And that is which of our foreign allies had something to say about the appointment of Peter Mandelson to Washington? I appreciate the Minister is never going to say precisely who that ally might be, but the nature of that correspondence surely is a matter of public interest and therefore of interest to this House, but is not something that can be bruited abroad.

So the ISC provides the very obvious solution to discovering what representations were made and what material was passed between our allies and the Cabinet Office before this appointment was made. Can he make that commitment? Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I hope the House has seen, even in the course of this debate, Mr. speaker, how the constructive approach I've tried to take on the approach I've tried to take on the role of the ISC and its role in this process, that's precisely what I've done. I want to come I want to I've done. I want to come I want to turn now to another issue of this matter, which is the peerage, because another action the because another action the government is determined to take is to strip Peter Mandelson of his title as the Prime Minister has set title as the Prime Minister has set out.

And frankly, I think people watching this will be bemused because there is no other walk of life where you are unsackable unless a law is passed. So we will introduce primary legislation. We, the government, has written to the chair of the Lords Conduct Committee to ask the Lords to consider what changes are required to modernise the House processes, to remove Lords quickly when they brought the House into disrepute and the government stands ready to support the House in whatever way it is necessary to put any changes in effect.

Now, Mr. Speaker, being in office is a privilege. It is a privilege. Every day is a privilege. And that is why there is anger across this House about Peter Mandelson and his actions, the test for the government in these circumstances is the action we take to respond. And as I think has also come through this debate, our utmost thoughts are with the victims, the women and girls who suffered at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein, behind the emails, the photographs and the documents are many victims who are exposed to this network of abuse.

They should be our priority in this matter, and I'm sure they will be for the rest of this debate. Thank you.
13:41
13:42
Lisa Smart Portrait Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah. >> So I. >> Agree with the hon. Lady's characterisation of some of the individuals we're talking about today. I think we will be supporting the leader of the opposition's motion to request the amount of information that is sought, and we would go further. We would look to a public inquiry to look at the detail that I think the victims deserve. The revelations about Peter Mandelson's conduct raised profoundly serious questions about judgement, about national security and about accountability. The leaked emails suggest that while serving as a Cabinet Minister, he shared sensitive government information, sharing details about the 2008 financial crisis, market sensitive bailout measures and potential asset sales.

These allegations point to potential misconduct in public office aimed at helping those involved in enrich themselves. They certainly warrant the police investigation that was announced yesterday, but also revealed catastrophic failures in the systems meant to protect our national interest. The emails highlight a fundamental lack of accountability that exists within our current system. The Prime Minister has rightly called Peter Mandelson's conduct a betrayal. He submitted material to the police, requested draft legislation on removing peerages. These responses are necessary, but it has taken the government far too long to get to this position.

Mandelson was appointed ambassador to the United States by this government and this Prime Minister, even after his links to Epstein had been extensively reported by the Financial Times and Channel four news. I will give way to my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend umbrella. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. The Cabinet Secretary in evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee after Mandelson had been withdrawn from Washington, said withdrawn from Washington, said that a summary of the developed Vetting and Conflict of Interest Vetting and Conflict of Interest report was given to the Prime Minister prior to Mandelson's appointment, something which the appointment, something which the Prime Minister appeared to confirm at the despatch box earlier. The government and the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that it was the extent of the relationship that changed and somehow alter the appropriateness of his appointment.

I wonder what message she thinks it sends to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, to the many victims of rape or paedophilia, of sexual assault or sex trafficking, that anyone with a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein should be deemed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appropriate to be. Our representative in Washington. Yeah. I completely Mr Speaker I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely Mr Speaker I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I am not sure to what extent of friendship is appropriate extent of friendship is appropriate with a known convicted sex trafficker to put somebody in our trafficker to put somebody in our most senior diplomatic position. I will in a minute. I'll make a tiny bit more progress, if I may. Channel four dispatches in 2019 interviewed a witness who saw Epstein take a phone call from Mandelson while he was in prison for child sex trafficking.

Mandelson asked for a favour to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meet the then JP Morgan CEO. All of this information was in the public domain. I will. I'm grateful. The exact.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The exact. Point about it being in. US. And one of the questions we haven't heard from the government haven't heard from the government was a request put in to the US to ask whether there are any concerns in the first place, because we know in the first place, because we know that this relationship was public, we know that it existed. So did the US get asked for any information or any concerns they have? I haven't heard the government explain this point, has she?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I listening as intently as the hon. Gentleman has? I'm not sure. I think there are so many questions think there are so many questions that are right for the government to answer. We believe a public inquiry is the way to get to the inquiry is the way to get to the bottom of that. After any police investigation has concluded, there are questions that swirl around are questions that swirl around which advisers said what and when. But the decision to hire Mandelson

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But the decision to hire Mandelson was ultimately the prime minister's, and he must be held responsible for that choice on. That point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Happily. I thank you for giving way. Earlier, the Minister said that Jeffrey Epstein's crimes were unforgivable. Did she think that the Prime Minister appointing said

**** Possible New Speaker ****

known paedophile was that forgivable? Is that forgivable? I Lewes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think my hon. Friend is referring to the friend of a known Peter Kyle rather than the appointment of a paedophile. Thank appointment of a paedophile. Thank you very much. Which is an important clarification to make. I think that there are rightly questions surrounding the judgement displayed by the Prime Minister in appointing Peter Mandelson to the position of UK ambassador to the US. And the questions around those judgements around that judgement Mr Speaker are wholly valid, as are questions being asked around current Cabinet Ministers who chose, who also chose to maintain friendships with Mandelson, with rumours of him popping in and out of some offices at will.

And I must say I noted the facial expressions of some on the government frontbench during PMQs earlier today. Many questions were raised about Mandelson before his appointment. Of course, there were questions raised about him during the 2009 expenses scandal. He was forced to resign from Cabinet twice for unethical behaviour, and we understand the security services raised serious concerns about his appointment last year. Yet he was still appointed to one of our most sensitive diplomatic positions. This is not a case of one unforeseen problem.

This is a pattern of warning signs that were ignored. This Labour government promised to break with conservative chaos and instead we see the same failures inadequate checks, reactive crisis management and an inability I will in a moment, and an inability to present to prevent obvious problems. You do not restore public trust with heartfelt apologies after things go wrong. You do it by having proper systems that stop scandals before they happen. Labour has failed to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

maintain public confidence and they must do better. I will give. Clive Lewis thank you for giving way. Obviously people here want to get to the bottom of accountability in terms of the Prime Minister, other elements within number ten, and of course, what Peter Mandelson himself has done. But there is something out there, I think, which something out there, I think, which is more systemic. And the public understand that this isn't just about a number of rotten apples in the system, it is systemic.

It is about wealth and power and access and how they treat young girls and women and us, the public. They take us for mugs. So does she believe that this is wider than just a few bad apples? It is systemic and that's what needs to be addressed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

here. And that's what the public wants. Lisa Smart I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I'm agree with the hon. Gentleman. I'm wondering if he's seen ahead in my notes, my remarks about some of the systemic changes we as Liberal systemic changes we as Liberal Democrats would like to see. I agree with him. This goes far beyond a few bad apples. There are beyond a few bad apples. There are systemic failures in our country that we need to seize this opportunity to address, and there are fundamental weaknesses in our system of government weaknesses that successive administrations have failed to address, and which now further threaten public confidence.

I'm going to take the urging of the Father of the House to focus on how we make progress from here. We must make reforms to the ministerial code, as it is clearly not functioning as it is. The code exists as a set of rules and principles, acting as guidance for Ministers rather than having legal basis. Therefore, Ministers who breach it face no legal consequences when the ministerial code is investigated. Even when this is done by independent advisers, the Prime Minister can decide whether to listen to the adviser or not, which means that accountability becomes almost meaningless.

And I wonder if, in his winding up remarks, the Minister might consider this. And using this troubling episode in our national story as a catalyst for bringing about the much needed change by enshrining the ministerial code in law. Liberal Democrats believe that to go some way to restore vital public trust in our democracy, we also need to make fundamental reforms to this House and the other place. Members of the government clearly share this sentiment, as we've heard various Ministers on the airwaves over the last couple of days, saying that the government recognises the urgency of reforming the laws and may bring forward proposals at pace.

I'd be grateful if the Minister could lay out further detail of their plans to legislate, especially given growing concern about public trust in our democratic institutions and the integrity of this Parliament. The government holds a substantial majority in this House, and we've seen that they're able to push through registration legislation rapidly. We saw this only last week with the medical training privatisation bill, and the same process could be used to make urgent changes to the Other place. Ministers need to set out the legal mechanisms available to suspend or remove appear the timetable for any planned legislation.

The progress of cross-party discussions that have been mentioned in the press, and how confidence in the upper chamber will be restored because, without clarification, uncertainty risks further eroding public confidence in Parliament and in our democratic institutions. To the specifics of the motion we are discussing today and the government amendment to it, we Liberal Democrats believe firmly that transparency is vital, and it is the very least the government can do to release the information requested. So we will be supporting the main motion.

We would go further. We don't even know the full extent of the British establishment's involvement in Epstein's appalling crimes, or how many British girls and young women were trafficked by him. We are calling for a full public inquiry with the power to compel witnesses both to get justice for the victims security.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that point. I will give way. I thank. My hon. Friend for giving way and specifically on the information and specifically on the information that's available. Does she share my discomfort with the fact that this discomfort with the fact that this information is only become clear for us? But this mass release of information from the Department of information from the Department of Justice in the United States, and whilst I understand the government's reluctance to release government's reluctance to release information that may well harm international affairs, that doesn't seem to be a concern of the US government.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my hon. Friend, and I think the best disinfectant is often daylight. I am strongly in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is often daylight. I am strongly in favour of transparency and welcome it, including the information that's being requested today. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank. You for giving way. I think. Her point about the wider. Establishment is important. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Individuals like Sir Richard Branson who have clearly offering to help Epstein to launder his identity and his launder his identity and his reputation by suggesting PR advice on how he might recover from his prosecution. And gentlemen like Bill gates, whose wife is very bravely spoken out against one of the reasons why she left him due to his links to Epstein.

How do we make sure that men like this, who continue to have extreme power, can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

face some sort of justice on this? Lisa Smart she. Is entirely right to talk about some of the very well known men, some of the very well known men, and it is men wealthy, powerful, and it is men wealthy, powerful, greedy men who we are talking about today who should be held accountable for their actions. The accountable for their actions. The transparency that is sought today is something I think we should all welcome and have in our minds, the welcome and have in our minds, the victims and survivors, and preventing future young girls and women from being victims and survivors of similar crimes.

We should do all we can and take that responsibility that we have very seriously indeed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton, mentioned earlier in questions to the Prime Minister and indeed the Shadow Minister mentioned from the Dispatch Box today that the Polish government thinks Epstein may have been spying for Putin, the British public and Epstein's victims deserve to know if a UK Cabinet Minister was leaking secrets not only to a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, but also a Russian agent.

We Liberal Democrats recognise the vital importance of safeguarding national security and genuinely welcome the openness displayed by the Minister. In looking at the ISC as a way of getting to the bottom of some of this that he expressed earlier. However, safeguards are already in place to protect national security. These include the National Security Act, which restricts the disclosure of information where this would harm the safety or interests of the UK, and in tabling the amendment they have, including international relations, as a reason to keep secret the information they have.

The government is trying to wriggle out of their obligation to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Willingly. The hon. Lady, for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Giving way. I think the transparency point is really important. This Peter Mandelson was a Labour politician. This is a Labour government. It may be that Peter Mandelson was an isolated bad apple, and really no one knew anything about anything that he was anything about anything that he was doing until this release of these documents last week. But the public will wonder and they will question. And if a Labour government covers And if a Labour government covers up by being anything less than fully transparent, they will wonder who they're covering up for and why.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lisa Smart I think there have been a series of administrations who have not been as open as they who have not been as open as they might be, who've made poor choices about the behaviour of some of their members that have ended up in scandal and disgrace. And I completely agree. If she's making a point that trust, public trust in our institutions, public trust in our government is vital and we must all take that very seriously. There all take that very seriously.

There is a sorry legacy of recent governments who have behaved less than impeccably in a number of ways. And I think using this whole sorry episode as a catalyst to bring

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about much needed change is something we would strongly support. Give way. To give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To give way. I will give way, and then I will. Andrew Murrison giving way. Now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Andrew Murrison giving way. Now the Prime Minister has said it's OK because the Cabinet Secretary is going to command this process. Does she agree with the Cabinet Secretary as a person of impeccable repute? But whatever he is, is he's repute? But whatever he is, is he's he's he can't be objective because he's been involved in this process. It is almost unfair to put this on him. So what mechanism can she devise that will deal with that, other than give the great bulk of this? Because international relations is going to cover the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

great bulk of this to the ISC. Yeah. Well. He's he's clearly been reading Liberal Democrat press releases, Mr. Speaker, because we believe a public inquiry is a is a far more effective way of getting to the effective way of getting to the bottom of this. And I'm delighted that he made that point. I said I'd go to the back of Jeremy Corbyn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

go to the back of Jeremy Corbyn. I thank the Member for giving way and she's making some excellent points. Would she agree with me that all of the inquiry systems that all of the inquiry systems that have been discussed so far in this debate are actually influenced or participants in of people who've been within the golden circle of Peter Mandelson in the past, don't we need something very novel and very different, such as an independent, judge led inquiry or judicially led inquiry that examines the whole thing in the round on in the way that perhaps

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Chilcot inquiry looked into the Iraq war. Lisa Smart I'm always delighted to get agreement from across the political spectrum, Mr. Speaker, and I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman that an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

independent judgement would be the right way to go. Forward and in terms of the shortcomings of what the Prime Minister proposed from the despatch box at 1230, the Cabinet secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee back in November on this very subject, the only information which was not already in the public domain at the time is a reference to official records which have since been disclosed. We've learned, obviously, this week that was not the case. And so the Cabinet

**** Possible New Speaker ****

secretary is plainly not the right person to be leading this government investigation. Wouldn't she agree? That's a very good point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's a very good point. So I. Lisa Smart extremely well. I believe that a public inquiry, a I believe that a public inquiry, a judge, an inquiry in the public which could take evidence in camera as appropriate for national security, would be the right way forward. And I think I'd encourage the Minister to consider when he's the Minister to consider when he's winding up where we go from here, because transparency must be prioritised over the potential embarrassment any of these documents could cause.

And surely those on the government benches must see that the intentionally broad wording of the government amendment would permit the government to keep any correspondence hidden that they think might embarrass our government, our allies. This means Trump and his cronies, or that might paint the Prime Minister somehow as weak. Surely a relevant factor when considering international relations. It must not be allowed to do so, and we will be voting against the pretty shameless government amendment. Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are rumours that Peter Mandelson is still receiving a salary or payments from the UK government, potentially including his ambassador's salary, severance pay and or pension from his time as a Minister.

And I'd be very grateful when winding up if the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could confirm if any of this is the case, I will one last time. Alicia Kearns.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alicia Kearns. I really thank the hon. Lady for raising this, because I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary on the 5th of the Cabinet Secretary on the 5th of December asking when Peter Mandelson's pay stopped, how much the severance payment was, and whether taxpayers had to foot the bill for it. Despite that being bill for it. Despite that being well over two months ago, I have had no response. So how can we have any confidence, as the hon. Lady, any confidence, as the hon.

Lady, think, that this investigation will be done properly when the Cabinet Secretary won't even answer basic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

questions on how Mandelson was paid and how much it cost us all. Lisa Smart. I agree strongly with the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree strongly with the hon. Lady, and I think that transparency is is what the public deserves, and it's what we in this House demand. This whole sorry tale is about more than the failures, greed and than the failures, greed and corruption of one man or even whole swathes of rich, powerful men who swathes of rich, powerful men who conspired to abuse their wealth and power over many years. It is about judgement, and it's also about a system that has long been not fit for purpose, and an establishment that wants to keep things just the way they are, because that suits their needs.

We should use this shocking situation to bring about the changes our country needs that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trust in politics demands, and that deserve. Here, here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here, here. Thornberry. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to start by acknowledging the victims, the victims of Epstein and the powerful victims of Epstein and the powerful men around him, vulnerable, abused women and girls who were sold and traded. And since the publication of Epstein's papers, we have learned so much more. I just, Mr. Speaker, want to to read one email from Jeffrey Epstein to Peter Mandelson, dated the 28th of October 2009, and it says this New York, Brown, Cuban American, have you made any decisions? Peter Mandelson answers a few minutes later.

Why are you awake? These questions are all related. Death for q m, but can only get to New York at a time when people feel, gee, this may be Gordon Brown won't have some sort of breakdown. Still working on it. Therefore, there are so many questions about that. One of the. Suggested answers might be that it's not just young women. Yes I can.
14:02
Emily Thornberry Portrait Rt Hon Emily Thornberry MP (Islington South and Finsbury, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, regret describing the appointment of Peter Mandelson as inspired, and did she know his ongoing relationship with Epstein

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prior to his appointment? Yes, I will. I will come to that because it's important and it's an important to important and it's an important to put it in the context. So let me just move on. So since then, we've seen not just that, but we've also seen not just that, but we've also seen treachery of the worst kind. And the question is we have how did we get here that a man like that became ambassador to the United States from Britain? And I think States from Britain? And I think that we have to begin by thinking, by bringing ourselves back to when Donald Trump was elected and how challenging that was and how difficult it was to know what the best choice was when it came to who the ambassador to the United States ought to be.

There was a choice. We could have continued with the ambassador, who was already there, a woman called Karen Pierce. She'd been invited to Mar a Lago many times. She had connections in with Donald Trump's circle. She was an older woman, a powerhouse. She's a great she's great at making friends. She wears mad shoes, and she's one of a generation of senior older women who, too many of whom are no longer in the Foreign Office and have been replaced by boys at the time when Labour was elected.

Of the six other members of the G7 countries, all of them were represented. Britain in all of those countries were represented by women, including the United Nations as well. And now there is only one. We had a choice between between deciding to continue to, to, to, to to ask Karen Pierce to be the ambassador or to go in another direction. And the question was what was the right way to do it? We went for a Mandelson because it was seen as an imaginative response, and I welcomed it as an imaginative response.

Personally, I would have continued with Karen Pierce, who's a woman I know and I trust and I admire. But if a choice has to be, if a different direction was to be made, it was a it was a choice that was imaginative and was one that made some sense in the context of Donald Trump becoming Prime Minister. The I will I will give way in a moment, but let me just finish this point. So on the so on, so on the 3rd of November, when we discovered more information about Mandelson's relationship with Epstein, we asked for Chris Wormald, the Cabinet secretary, and Oliver Robbins, the permanent Under-Secretary at the FCDO, to come before the committee to give evidence because we were concerned as to how this had happened, that there was clearly so much background information about Peter Mandelson that that had that that simply was out there, but didn't seem to have been considered properly before a decision was made.

And so we asked how it had happened, and we were told that the first thing that happened was that there is due diligence, and due diligence means that fast stream civil servants are given the opportunity of going to open sources. So they go on to Google and they and they look and that's how they do the due diligence. And that threw up reference to Peter Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I asked Sir Chris Wormald and it's question 313. It's really important to be clear about this.

I'm sorry to keep banging on about it, but was the Prime Minister told that Peter Mandelson had stayed at Epstein's Manhattan townhouse in 2009, when Epstein was in prison for soliciting an underage girl? Because it does seem to me to be different, and perhaps it's my background as a lawyer, but to be friends with someone who's accused of something and to stand by them shows one sort of character and shows a certain strength. But once someone has been convicted to continue to be friends with them, to stay at their house actually shows a completely different type of character.

And for me, that was a nub point and something that I wanted to know whether the Prime Minister had been given that information which was publicly available, which I have to say had passed me by, but I knew the friendship. But to to know that the friendship had continued post conviction, I think, is really important to establish the difference. And that was something that we asked and we and the answer was, I'm not going to tell you the contents of the due diligence report.

I will give away, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alicia Kearns for giving way at that point. I understand that she's saying that the information that Peter Mandelson had maintained a relationship with a then convicted paedophile passed her by. However, paedophile passed her by. However, she does have an entire committee of clerks who will have advised her, and I'm afraid she also says that and I'm afraid she also says that she said it was an imaginative appointment. I'm afraid her words were it was an inspired appointment because I spoke out against the appointment.

So can she please explain to me whether her clerks at any point shared with her concerns about the background of Epstein and his relationship with Anderson, and whether she therefore will now say that she regrets calling it an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inspired appointment. We I mean, anyone, anyone who either made the decision or who or either made the decision or who or who who said it was a good thing must regret that, of course. But when you must remember that the point was made on the 18th, and I made those comments two days later. made those comments two days later. So, I mean, during those two days, it would be right to say it was the run up to Christmas. The the clerks run up to Christmas.

The the clerks were not people that I referred to. First. There was there was work done thereafter. And the reason there was work done thereafter was because what we wanted was once he had been appointed. Well, once he once the announcement of the appointment had been made, we wanted him to come before the committee and we wanted to ask him questions. And it was very important. We felt that he was asked questions in, in, in, in an open committee hearing where there would be a record made and where we could ask him questions such as the ones which I put to May I just finish this? I said this, I said if he had come before us, we would have looked on the internet.

We would have googled. We would have found that channel four had done a documentary, The Peace and the Prince and the paedophile, that clearly highlighted Mandelson's links with Epstein. We would have given consideration to the Financial Times and The Guardian reports in June 2023 that referenced the JP Morgan internal investigation. In those reports, what was most damaged of all was that Epstein was sentenced to, in 2008, to 18 months imprisonment for soliciting an underage girl, and Peter Mandelson goes to stay in his townhouse in in Manhattan in 2009.

At that time, Peter Mandelson was the business secretary, so we had the business secretary staying in the townhouse in Manhattan of someone convicted of paedophilia. We would have asked those questions and whatever answers would have been given, whether they were honest or not, would have been out there in the public. But the problem was, I think this was that a decision was made in the haste of Donald Trump's election to go for an imaginative, inspiring alternative. Person to go to, to go to the United States.

And there was not enough time spent on it. And so the decision was made to appoint subject to no, please let me let me finish. I do want to I do know I. Let me just finish. Finish what I'm saying. So the decision is made to appoint. There is supposed to be some due diligence before that happens. And I can help the house with what the due diligence meant. I've already explained that it's given to these people from Fast Stream DLUHC.

And again, we were asking when you did the due diligence, what detail was given to the Prime Minister about what about what the results of that due diligence was, because I said it was very important that we were given the information as to what the Prime Minister at that point was told, because a friendship with Epstein was one that was generally known. But the specific point about the ongoing friendship and the staying as a member of the Cabinet in Epstein's New York townhouse, to me, was a very different matter.

And what I wanted to know was, had the had the Prime Minister been let down by not being told that particular point? Because in the end, we can't expect the Prime Minister to do all the due diligence himself. He does have a country to run, and he relies on those who are around him to give him proper advice and to then work on that advice and to be able to make decisions on that basis. I have seven people wanting to intervene.

If I may, perhaps I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

take two. I will take this gentleman. Hon. Lady giving way. This whole debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This whole debate. Is centred. Around the judgement. And the trust in the judgement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the trust in the judgement of our Prime Minister of this United Kingdom, when. He decided.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He decided. To appoint the monster, when he decided to appoint Mandelson as US ambassador. And yet the hon. Lady ambassador. And yet the hon. Lady has just confirmed that the Cabinet Secretary refused to answer questions about vetting. When the Prime Minister is asking us to trust the Cabinet Secretary to make decisions about the release of documents and information, so does the hon. Lady agree with me that it must be right that the Intelligence and Security Committee makes those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decisions, as opposed to a Cabinet Secretary within whom we no longer can have trust. Dame Emily Thornberry again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dame Emily Thornberry again. For the record, the I asked the Cabinet Secretary why he wasn't prepared to give this to us, and he prepared to give this to us, and he said two reasons. First of all, because he felt that he had a duty of care to the to the candidate. of care to the to the candidate. And the second was because he was not going to give information of the advice that he was giving to number ten and put that into the public realm.

So they were the two reasons that he gave. I think that the proposed amendment is one which is which has a great deal of sense, and I hope that we can see a lot of bustling around going on in the background of the chamber at the moment. And let's see what what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

comes from that. I will take one other intervention. I take. Hon. Lady for giving way. She's making strong and clear points about the relationship between Epstein and Mandelson. The Prime Minister was clear at Prime Minister's Questions that he knew that the relationship was ongoing, and he knew that at the time he and he knew that at the time he appointed him. What sort of ongoing relationship with an unrelated convicted paedophile is acceptable convicted paedophile is acceptable to the Honourable hon.

Lady? For someone who is out to represent our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country on the world stage. I think I've made clear that for me, there is a difference between me, there is a difference between being a friend of someone who is accused of something and then having a and putting distance having a and putting distance between yourself and that person. If they are then convicted. I think that a decision should be made at that a decision should be made at that point as to and that goes to, I think, a matter of conscience and the right way to proceed.

That's my the right way to proceed. That's my view. If I may make some progress and I won't take any more interventions. So I've got to the point of I've explained what what we were, what we were told about, about due diligence and how that happened. And then normally what would happen is that there is then an interview and it's done with a panel. And so questions that would have been would have arisen during due diligence would be put to the candidate during that interview.

And that didn't happen in this case because it was a political appointment. And so none of if anyone had any concerns about Peter Mandelson and his background in any of the things that people are now concerned about, it would not have been formally put to him during any form of interview process, where there were minutes taken and where we could now look at what the conversations were. And that, I think, is a really important piece of information to put before the chamber so that people understand how this happened.

So we have due diligence, fast stream, looking at the internet, nothing being put to Peter Mandelson. And then the decision is announced and the decision is announced in the middle of December, as we've heard. And then the question is they want to do it really quickly because they want him presumably to be in the swearing in of the president. And once he's been announced as being the ambassador, Karen Pierce loses power and influence because she's now known not to continue in that post.

And so it's important to move as soon as possible. The question, therefore, is the next stage has to be vetting, and that is done by the Foreign Office. And the question I would want to ask the frontbench is this, given that the announcement has been made, given that there is speed needed, was there pressure put on the Foreign Office to get through the vetting quickly? Was there to coin a phrase that I've heard a need to quote, get on with it.

And that, I think is an important question to ask, and one that we would need to have an answer to because the because the vetting is important. But we also have to be realistic, which is once once it is known that Peter Mandelson is going to be the ambassador for Britain, could it really be at that point that people would seriously, they would need to be a huge amount of bravery and potential risk. So at that point, once the vetting has happened to withdraw him from being ambassador, if anything was to come up at that stage, I will.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wait. As the chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, does she know what the then Foreign does she know what the then Foreign secretary, now the Deputy Prime Minister, the Member for Tottenham, does she know what he knew at that does she know what he knew at that time? And does she think that that should also be brought to the attention of the house in this release of documents?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I think the point is, is that the due diligence and the vetting is done by civil servants and is not supposed to involve politicians, and the decision was made at number ten, and that is how that is how it works, as I understand it. And so and so the and so the and so the views of the Foreign Secretary may

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not be as directly relevant in this sense. Yes. I think she's being very generous. And thank you for giving generous. And thank you for giving way once again. But what's the point in civil servants doing due diligence if that information is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

diligence if that information is not given to politicians to make decisions. It's given to those who are making the decisions. As I making the decisions. As I understand it, as I understand it, the due diligence is done by the Cabinet Office and then the. And Cabinet Office and then the. And then the decision is made as to which candidate they they did due diligence on a number of candidates, and then the decision is made as to which candidate is going to be put forward.

Then it is announced, and then there's the vetting done by the Foreign Office. And then that information is, then is, then is then handed back. And I believe that's the process. I think it's important just for clarity, that people know that is what the what's what the process is. Because if we are about to get a large amount of information, it's important to have an understanding of how it worked.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll give way. I'm very grateful to. The. Chairman of the committee. She's right in that perspective. I could right in that perspective. I could just quote from a letter to my committee from the Cabinet Secretary. Due diligence is generally carried out by the generally carried out by the appointing Ministers department. In this case, it was carried out by the Cabinet Office on behalf of number ten. So it is not usually number ten. So it is not usually shared with other departments.

This is an answer to a question. Was the FCDO involved and was not in this case. So the FCDO this was purely Cabinet Office at number ten. Right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Ladies. Right. Just what that quote may help her in her argument. Thank you very much. Yes, I've read the letter. I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I've read the letter. I'm afraid I didn't have it at my fingertips. But it's important, I think, to put all of this information before the house so information before the house so that we're able to make. And then the question is, what does vetting mean? I appreciate there are other processes that we can't go into processes that we can't go into here, and it wouldn't be appropriate to do it. But again, if I can just I hope we have helped to I can just I hope we have helped to the House by an answer that I, I got.

There's a question 269 where I said the foundation of it seems to be that they fill in a form. You have to take in good faith that they're filling it in correctly, and then you check what it is that they've said. So if they have admitted anything, no one is looking outside what is on the form. And so Oliver Robins said that is broadly correct. Yes. So that is vetting. That is vetting. I'll give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way to the Honourable. Lady Maldon. Madam Deputy Speaker. I will. Touch on vetting.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Touch on vetting. In my contribution later, as someone who was vetted by the Foreign Office at many, many years ago, I'd like to actually seek some clarity as to whether Peter Mandelson went through the full Mandelson went through the full vetting process that a normal member of the Diplomatic service would do ahead of taking up such a would do ahead of taking up such a post, or did he simply undergo what is known more in political terms and Chief Whip terms as the pet process, which is undertaken by the Cabinet Office? Because full

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vetting, Madam Deputy Speaker, takes a long time. I'm I understand what the lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm I understand what the lady is saying. Obviously, I don't know. All I can do to help the house is, All I can do to help the house is, is all I can do to help the house is point out when the announcement is point out when the announcement was made of of Lord Mandelson to be the ambassador, which was in the ambassador, which was in mid-December, and when it was that that that the that that he began to take the post up and the pressure that was being put on in order to make sure that we were all clear that that's what he was going to be the ambassador in time for the swearing in of the president a month later.

And I, we, we the committee did everything that we could to try to get to the bottom of how many questions were asked, what the questions were. And and we did our utmost, all of us, to try to get to the truth of this. But I think to say, if you read the transcript that we were mandarins

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would be a other way. I appreciate the. Explanation that was given to the process, because I think for many people outside of it, we do wonder what information is shared and what process has gone through, and what process has gone through, but it's it would be hard to believe that the information held by the Department for justice in by the Department for justice in the US wasn't shared with our security services, and that wouldn't have been disclosed in a process for a post of this nature.

With the security clearance that would be required on that basis, and to eliminate any accusation of cover up or conspiracy isn't the right path to have the the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Intelligence and Security Committee look at this and within the evidence that is then coming forward. For the member. Response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Response. We've got a very. Healthy number of members wishing to contribute. interventions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are short. And I assume. Emily Thornberry. You'll be coming to your. Conclusion shortly. So I hope.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conclusion shortly. So I hope. That I mean, I've throughout my contribution, what I've tried to do is explain the attempts that the is explain the attempts that the Foreign Affairs Committee have made. And I think the most important thing is that we asked several times. We asked we asked in straightaway in January. We asked in February. We asked many times to have the have the Lord Mandelson in front of the committee because we would have been able to ask those questions.

And I do think that we perhaps would not be in the mess that we are in now. If the Foreign Affairs Committee have been able to do its job properly, and we expect that the next political appointment, if there is one, will be put before the committee so that we are able to ask questions in a way that is not necessary for for appointments for people within the Foreign Office. But if you want to put an additional person in who is a politician, politicians should be asking questions on the record so that we know what it is that we're getting and what contribution they can make and the risks that are being taken.

We would have asked about Epstein, we would have asked about loans and the answers, truthful or not, would have been on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the record. Sir. Julian Smith Mr Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Julian Smith Mr Speaker. Humble addresses are very difficult for the government of. The day.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The day. And for Chief Whip and the Cabinet Minister. Just leaving presented many humble addresses that I dealt with. They're that I dealt with. They're difficult from a legal point of view. They're difficult from the position of protecting the rights of the executive to have of the executive to have independent advice. And as the right hon. Member for
14:23
Julian Smith Portrait Rt Hon Sir Julian Smith MP (Skipton and Ripon, Conservative)
-
-
Ashton-under-Lyne said, sometimes those judgements are handled in a way that retrospectively might have way that retrospectively might have been different. The national security element is obviously extremely important, and I pay tribute to all of our intelligence services and the protection that services and the protection that they bring to our country. But this, Madam Deputy Speaker, this humble Madam Deputy Speaker, this humble address is quite different from any other humble address. I believe there has been presented to this Parliament because this humble address is about corruption at the very heart of our democracy.

It's not corruption, in my view, relating to the current government. There's obviously differing views on the judgement, etc. but for me, this humble address is the route that we will start to get to the bottom of what looks like corruption that we have not seen in this Parliament, probably in recent times, and how we handle that and how we move forward now is critical to all of us, and it's absolutely vital for the issue of public trust. I'm not going to win public trust.

We've heard a discussion earlier between members of the IOC, the government, and I know there are conversations taking place on amongst usual channels. But I just want to say to the front bench my what I heard from the house today was that the House wants the government to cede control of those documents, either to the House or to the ISC. Whether those documents relate to national security or whether they relate to foreign policy. I also heard that the House is very cognisant of the fact that this place will not see all of those documents.

The IOC may see many of those documents and we will not see them. But the issue for the government is can it make the next step to cede control of these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

documents to this House and to the Is? See, I will. Can I thank him for the point he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank him for the point he is making and from my perspective, and I wonder if he agrees with me if the amendment said that anything if the amendment said that anything that was secret or top secret need to be withheld, that for me would to be withheld, that for me would be a very different argument. But the use of this very vague terminology around national security, which has never been used security, which has never been used in a previous humble address by the opposition, as I made clear in Point of order after PMQs is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nonsense, not least the idea of international relations, which is completely vague. Yeah. I agree.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree. With her on that point. I am aware that one of our Five Eyes allies gave a warning about Peter allies gave a warning about Peter Mandelson. I don't know whether that's true, but I know that as a as a humble backbencher, the House now needs to know because this is a now needs to know because this is a House matter. If we don't deal with this satisfactorily, we are all this satisfactorily, we are all going to be condemned with what has gone on.

So I would urge the frontbench to ensure that in the next hour or so, the discussions focus on not just ISC involvement, but ISC oversight for all sensitive diplomatic or security related documents. Second brief point Madam Deputy Speaker is the nature of the address itself. It's very tempting for the government of the day to take a narrow view of what the opposition has asked it, but as we heard from the front bench, our opposition frontbench, there is evidence or at least allegations about Peter Mandelson's time in Washington that relates to who attended embassy parties, that relates to how UK government contracts last year came about.

And in my view, we should address now all of these issues, get them out so we can fully understand not just what happened, not just the judgement of the government, but also what is behind the threats and what were our allies worrying about. China, Russia? Many more things than just the corrupt act itself. Madam Deputy Speaker, this humble address is and should be regarded by the House and by the government, particularly as a vehicle. It is a vehicle for protecting our democracy, and it's a vehicle for beginning to unpick exactly what happened on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein's victims.
14:28
Matt Bishop Portrait Matt Bishop MP (Forest of Dean, Labour)
-
-
Matt Bishop Madam Deputy Speaker. extremely supportive of the government. I'm proud of what we've achieved together in the short space of time, and we've delivered massive investment into NHS and schools. These are all positive steps and we're taking meaningful steps to reduce inequality, lift people out of poverty, support families through a cost of living crisis and an increasingly uncertain world. We've also committed ourselves to tackling violence against women and girls with a seriousness and ambition that was very long overdue.

Just yesterday, members across the House came together to vote to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, including members from reform, Lib Dems and other parties. I was proud to walk through the lobby and I was proud of this House overall. And yet, Madam Deputy Speaker, that moment, that real, tangible progress has been almost entirely overshadowed by the growing scandal surrounding Mandelson that should concern every one of us in this House, because we stood on a promise to do politics differently.

This time we said that we would turn the page on the scandals, the secrecy and the sense that there was one rule for the powerful and one for everyone else. We said that we would restore trust in public life. And trust, once

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rebuild. The member give way. I will give way. I'd like to thank the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to thank the hon. Member for giving way. The member will be aware that earlier on today, the Prime Minister made a concession in that spot that he knew. And on that question, is this not a question about trust in the not a question about trust in the Prime Minister because of the decisions that he knew about? And that is what makes it so serious

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is what makes it so serious for this government here. I thank the Member for his intervention. I think we're talking about trust across the House, as I've said. So that includes every member of this House and across both both houses. The government's Violence against Women and Girls strategy is one of the proudest achievements of this parliament. It's the product of years of tireless campaigning by survivors, by advocates, by frontline organisations who have fought to have their voices heard.

But that work and that trust is fragile, and it risks being profoundly undermined when we appear unwilling to apply the same standards of transparency and accountability to those closest to power as we demand elsewhere. How can we stand in this chamber and say to victims that we believe them, that we will stand with them while refusing to release full documents relating to serious concerns about one of our own? How can we ask victims to trust the system if the system appears unwilling to scrutinise itself? The files released last weekend further highlighted what many already fear.

There exists a despicable elite network operating with proximity to power, entangled in international criminality and shielded for far too long by status and influence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I thank you for. My friend for giving way. My understanding is for giving way. My understanding is that there's information coming out daily, new information, and that daily, new information, and that other members of this House currently may or may not be directly linked to the Epstein and directly linked to the Epstein and Mandelson scandal. Do you agree with me that they should be fully investigated as well?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

investigated as well? I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Anybody linked should be investigated. Simple. If we are not fully transparent about how we vetted the US ambassador in the face of such scandal, how on earth can we expect victims to come forward in future? How can we expect them to trust institutions that seem designed to protect the powerful rather than the vulnerable? I think of the survivors I've met in my constituency and since being elected, I think of the advocacy groups who have worked alongside all of us across the house, organisations like the Holly Casa Trust, Sarah Taylor from pizza, and campaigners who have poured their lived experience into shaping the Vawg strategy.

How can I go back to them, look them in the eye? Having voted for an amendment that has the potential to conceal the behaviour of powerful people and their potentially criminal relationships. I will give way on that point. There's been quite a lot in disclosures, obviously raised naturally questions about probity. But the the issue about power and control and having information that could compromise once you are compromised, you are compromised and every decision there can be compromised. And in that basis, it does really bring into question the importance of an independent oversight on the evidence that's coming forward.

And so I hope when the Minister returns Dispatch Box later that he does reflect that in the response. I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention. Yes, I completely agree. The esque. I'll get on to that in a second. What would I say to those victims, though? The transparency matters, except when it's inconvenient. Accountability, please. Except when it's uncomfortable. As a party, we have promised to halve violence against women and girls, and we promise to put victims at the heart of everything we do.

And yet, today, we're being asked to accept an internal review into how the close friend of a known paedophile was vetted and internal review carried out by the very structures that failed to prevent this in the first

**** Possible New Speaker ****

place. I will give way. Thank you for giving me that point, and I actually wish to credit him for the speech he's credit him for the speech he's giving today. Very early in my career, I voted for something where I could not sleep that night, and I could not sleep that night, and never since have I voted for something that has made me feel ashamed of myself. And I will never ashamed of myself. And I will never do it again. But the bravery it takes so early in your time in this current term to do that is really important, and I hope that your important, and I hope that your colleagues on your benches, particularly new intake, stand behind you and supporting you for the decision you've made.

And do not criticise you because you are doing what you believe to be right. And I just have to say credit to you because we know how difficult that is from having gone for so long. So thank you, gentlemen, what he's saying and what he's doing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. Well. I thank the Member for her words. Madam Deputy Speaker, how can we mark our own homework on matters of this gravity? And I want to be clear that I understand the position that government finds position that government finds itself in. I understand that concerns have been raised about embarrassment, about reputational damage, about national and damage, about national and international security. These are serious considerations and they should not be dismissed lightly. should not be dismissed lightly. But if that in decisions were influenced by compromising relationships, then we have a far bigger problem, one that demands scrutiny and not silence, one that requires us to re-evaluate how this country operates on the international stage, and whether transparency and accountability are truly guiding principles or merely slogans.

An independent review by the ISC, coupled with a commitment to release documents subject to independent legal advice, is not an unreasonable request. If such a process is deemed unfavourable by the government, the public are not naive. They will draw their own conclusions. I'm not making any accusations today. I'm asking reasonable questions on behalf of my constituents and victims who are watching this debate closely. Will number ten be candid. Will it show humility? Will it choose transparency over defensiveness? And let me be equally clear about something else.

I don't believe the opposition table, this motion with victims at heart, and we can all see the political point scoring at play here. But the motivations of the opposition do not absolve us of our responsibility. Given the strength of feeling among victim and survivor groups. And frankly, given my own conscience, I cannot, in good faith, support a position that risks further eroding trust in our commitment to justice. Power and trust go hand in hand. The responsibility that comes with holding public office must never be understated.

We are entrusted all of us with shaping national policy, representing our communities, safeguarding the most vulnerable. And that trust must be earned every single day. And so today, Madam Deputy Speaker, not because it's politically convenient to me, but because it's morally necessary. I am voting with the victims, I'm voting with the survivors, and I'm voting with the principle that no one, however powerful, should ever be beyond scrutiny.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Simon Hoare indeed. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the forest of Dean, and I will return in a moment to a point that return in a moment to a point that he was just making. I have the great privilege, Madam Deputy Speaker, of being the father of Speaker, of being the father of three wonderful teenage daughters, three wonderful teenage daughters, and any parent or relative will feel their stomach turn and churn at the thought of vulnerable young women are being trafficked and used women are being trafficked and used as playthings for the sexual gratification of warped and twisted minds who thought they were.

Rules did not apply, and who thought that they could get away with it because of who they were. Yeah. And I
14:37
Simon Hoare Portrait Simon Hoare MP (North Dorset, Conservative)
-
-
suppose, Madam Deputy Speaker, the surprise is it relates to Peter surprise is it relates to Peter Mandelson is that we are surprised Mandelson is that we are surprised he was a man who seemed magnetised he was a man who seemed magnetised to money like a moth to a flame who had caused considerable and significant embarrassment and significant embarrassment and discomfort to previous leaders of his party, and where the current Prime Minister decided that, in some way or another, it was only the extent of a relationship that should be the determining factor, whereas in actual fact it was the existence of the relationship at all that should have precluded Peter Mandelson from an appointment to be our ambassador in Washington.

Now I want to pick up a point which the hon. Gentleman from the forest of Dean raised, in which I believe my hon. Friend from Stamford and Grantham, was also referring to and my conscience. I don't say this in particularly smugly. My conscience is a bit clearer than my hon. Friend's, if she's referring to the same vote. There was a vote in this place and government. The Treasury bench needs to just remember this, because there are certain votes and motions in Parliament that become a thing with a capital T, that become an event that set the scene, that make the atmosphere for the coming months and weeks of a government.

And I think that this issue and how the Treasury bench responds later is one such one. Yeah. Owen Paterson was and is a friend of mine, as well as being a former parliamentary colleague. We were asked to vote for something which effectively would have got him off a slightly painful, very painful hook. And I, along with 12 other conservative MPs against a lot of whipping, voted against the then government amendment to effectively de facto exonerated.

It was the most difficult vote I ever made because he was a friend, both political and personal. But it was a vote that I never have ever regretted because it was the right thing to do. And when all the party allegiance and the to ING and fro ING and everything else and the whipping and so on, and so is when all of that is over at the end of the day. And I hope it doesn't sound too folksy to say this, Mr.

Speaker, we all need to be able to look in the mirror and say to our families, to our friends, our constituents, whoever I always tried, I didn't always, but I always tried to do the right thing. Now, I think the right thing for the government to do is to withdraw its amendment. I think the mood of the House is incredibly clear. The wise advice? He's a former attorney general. He's a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I don't think anybody could refer to my right hon.

And learned friend, the Member for Kenilworth and Southam as being a partial politician in this place, I just don't I think his integrity speaks for itself, as does the integrity of the right hon. Member. The Member for Torbay. But anybody with a partial hearing of political interpretation will have gleaned the mood of the House, which is that the vehicle here, whilst respecting the national security and other issues, which is a perfectly legitimate concern of the government, is that this House vests within the Intelligence and Security Committee to discharge by senior members of this House and the Other place Privy councillors, all those duties which those of us who are not Privy Councillors on that committee cannot do for potential security issues.

We vest our faith and trust in that committee and it has never leaked, so the government can follow that path in good faith and with trust. I will in just a moment. I just want to finish this point, if I may. So I hope that either a manuscript amendment will be forthcoming and Mr Speaker accepted by you. But I pray in the interest of this place, because the hon. Gentleman for the forest of Dean mentioned party political in this, and I'm afraid I disagree, but I don't think there has been.

I agree far more with my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, because take away the party tags and the labels and the rosettes, etc. this is something that the vast majority of our citizens, fellow citizens, speaks to the operation of the state. It speaks to the effectiveness of this place. It speaks to the reliance that the citizen can put upon it for us in difficult times, to do the right thing, even when it is difficult to do so.

I say to members opposite. Talk to your whips. Talk to the usual channels. Ask the government not to press its amendment and or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the joint, and I give way to the hon. Gentleman. Very good hon. Member, for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very good hon. Member, for giving way. I wonder, would he agree with me, given what he said, agree with me, given what he said, that the amendment is drawn would, in effect, just throw a cloak over in effect, just throw a cloak over the very issues that many people in this House, many members write on, members want to see dealt with and members want to see dealt with and the way to resolve those sensitive issues is simple to engage the Intelligence and Security Committee.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Isn't that the best way forward? Is is is absolutely right in that respect, because why else that respect, because why else would we have an intelligence and security committee with that remit? It's not as if we've It's not as if we've retrospectively trying to establish a committee of this House to do a specific job. It exists to do this sort of job, amongst other things. sort of job, amongst other things. So I hope that the Treasury bench has listened.

On Monday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told this House and in response to a question from me on his statement that it was much better to deal with the removal of the title of Lord Mandelson by the Procedures and Standing Orders of the House of Lords, and it was by legislation. And he told the House, I'm sure, in complete and utter sincerity at the time, that it would require a complex hybrid bill. Mr. speaker, that was not an analysis that I shared.

My understanding is that a simple bill to amend section one brackets, two those brackets of the 1958 act, which would effectively apply a cessation date to the honour of a life peerage, is all that is required. We have passed legislation, important legislation for Northern Ireland and other issues in in a day's sitting. The mood of the House was very clear. So in his summing up, I would ask the Minister, because I think the Prime Minister indicated today Prime Minister's question, that he tasked his team, his officials, to drafting legislation.

There is an appetite for urgency in this place, allowing it to super eight and Drip is not going to be the answer. So if the Minister in his summing up, or if he wishes to intervene on me, could could give us a timetable as to when this House will see the bill and the government, time will be found to take it through in, in,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in one single day. That would be very helpful. Of course I'll give way. I'm very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and there Member for giving way, and there are many questions that are unanswered and need to be answered on the behaviour of Mandelson. But on the behaviour of Mandelson. But it is right, and I welcome that the government have promised to remove the peerages from Mandelson. But the peerages from Mandelson. But would he also agree with me that the bill should come before this House to remove Andrew

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House to remove Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of succession? Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Simon Hoare I think, Mr. Speaker, we usually prefer that matters relating to to those other things relating to to those other things are not dealt with on the floor of the House, but.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House, but. Just on this, because it is now a person, not a member of the royal family. It's completely different

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for thou Bar of the House Simon Hoare. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Possibly pass.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hospital pass has just gone through the shredder. So let me say to you, let let me let me say to to you, let let me let me say to the gentleman in all candour, yes, yes. The likelihood of Mr. yes. The likelihood of Mr. Bamberton Windsor ever putting a crown on his head is so remote as crown on his head is so remote as to be as to be, you know, unimaginable. But for clarity and and probity. I agree with him.

But I think we should deal with this matter in hand today. Now, my committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Mr. Speaker, has written to Sir Chris Elmore, the Cabinet Secretary, asking him to appear before us. And this follows a letter that we wrote last October, and received a reply from him on the 30th. The way of vetting a political appointment to be an ambassador was woefully inadequate. Now, I welcome the fact that number ten have put in place new procedures, but that is shutting the stable door after the horse is bolted and it either naivete or worse, some form of simplicity that the legitimate and obvious questions that should have arisen from any political appointee, but particularly Peter Mandelson, were not asked.

I think it is extraordinary that the views of the Foreign Secretary were not invited on this appointment. I also find it very strange that vetting is only undertaken after the announcement of an appointment is made. That is a most bizarre way of dealing with things. So I'm pleased that the government has realised that things

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need to be changed. My hon. Friend. Of course, I'd be. Grateful to my hon. Friend and he's right to look at the process, he's right to look at the process, but I don't think the process provides any cover for the decision by the Prime Minister. If the New by the Prime Minister. If the New Statesman story today is true, that the Prime Minister was directly sent a report that, and I quote, clearly stated that Mandelson's relationship with the paedophile continued after his conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution, soliciting a minor for prostitution, and it contained links to photographs of Mandelson with a paedophile and drew particular attention to evidence that Mandelson had stayed at Epstein's apartment while he was in prison.

If that is true, and in the candour has been talked about a lot today, does my hon. Friend agree with me? We should hear from the Minister today. Is that report in the New Statesman true? Did the Prime Minister receive that report? Because that takes away any idea of the extent of the relationship. The extent of the relationship is as laid out in that report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What my right hon. Friend is is right. But if this motion is passed and amended this afternoon, all of those papers will be available those papers will be available either to this place or to the ISS. either to this place or to the ISS. And then we will know, because we're all aware on these sorts of things. Somebody will set a hare things. Somebody will set a hare running at some point and will say, oh, well, I think this, that and the other.

So I've heard, for example, Peter Mandelson was in Labour Party headquarters each and every day in the run up to the general election. He was intimately involved with the selection of candidates. I can see a couple of Labour members nodding as if to say yes, I know exactly what was going to happen. And in essence, the ambassadorial position was a thank you present. Thank you for getting us into back into number ten. Here's your here's your sort of final gift from the public purse to go and be our ambassador to Washington.

Now, in the general scheme of things, that's perfectly fine. But I think we deserve to see the paperwork that shows the paper trail. And it is not unusual for political appointments to be made in that way. So thanks. But but and that is in the that is in the abstract in this in this specific case it is unconscionable. And it does speak. It does speak. And this is, I think, the surprising thing, given the fact that the Prime Minister flaunts with some degree of credibility, his previous role as a senior lawyer, his ability to tell right from wrong.

And by God, didn't we hear that when he was Leader of the Opposition? Any minor misdemeanour made by a conservative? They put, you know, the plastic thing in the paper recycling box. By God, that was a hanging event. They should all be taken outside, hung, drawn and quartered, etc. Now being in government is obviously is obviously different, but why the why the appointment of Mandelson befuddles everybody? Is that the argument that the Prime Minister has deployed is the full extent of the relationship and friendship with Epstein wasn't known.

The fact that there was any relationship post conviction of Epstein should have precluded him. Why? Because an ambassador is not a representative of the government. It's His Majesty's Ambassador to the United States of America. So it brings in the impartiality of the Crown as well. So there are serious questions, serious questions to ask about the operation of number ten. On that point, the operation and the and how the Prime Minister exercises his judgement. I'll give way. And then I do.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Want to thank my right for giving away on that point. It does seem that there seems to be an uneasiness happening about this, because this is the point. When he was made ambassador, it was well was made ambassador, it was well known that he continued the relationship with the convicted paedophile post his conviction, and there were simpering emails already there were simpering emails already in the public domain saying, oh, darling, one, you know, you should be, all should be forgiven. And so be, all should be forgiven.

And so the suggestion that is only recently that it became unacceptable for him to be ambassador is wrong. And if colleagues want to suggest another benches that it was not well known, colleagues like me raised it the day he was appointed in this chamber, and I was greeted with cheers and boos from that side. No one saying absolutely, maybe there

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are concerns. Yeah. So should that amnesia perhaps be reconsidered? Just one second. I'm bothered

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just one second. I'm bothered about time and it's not me that's going to say it's 4:00. All I would gently say is it's the opposition gently say is it's the opposition day. The opposition may want to extend the time available. So I'm very bothered. Not many people are very bothered. Not many people are going to get in at the rate we are. So I just leave it with members to take care of time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

take care of time. Simon Hoare conscious of that. I agree with my hon. Friend, let me conclude with my two asks of the government to confirm when a bill will be introduced and that it will be passed speedily in both houses, preferably before the Easter. It has to be before the Easter recess. And the second is, I think, on behalf of, if I may, it's not my job to speak on behalf of the backbenchers of the government benches, read the room, read the chamber.

I say to the Minister, let the government, Chief Whip and others to move this amendment send such a bad message. As the hon. Gentleman for the Forest of Dean said to our constituents, to victims not just of Epstein and Mandelson, but to the wider victim community, that when push comes to shove, officialdom somehow or another circles the wagons and finds a vehicle to filter and to protect. As the hon. Lady for Hazel Grove said, the best thing that we can have here is transparency.

The best disinfectant is sunlight. We need as much sunlight on these papers as possible. We can start to make some progress this afternoon. Don't move the amendment and publish the bill Polly Billington.
14:53
Polly Billington Portrait Ms Polly Billington MP (East Thanet, Labour)
-
-
Thank you. >> First. >> Let me take a. >> Moment for us to remember those women and girls silenced, marginalised, degraded, objectified, discarded collateral damage in the pursuit of pleasure for a network of men who thought the rules don't apply to them. The correspondence between these men from across the political spectrum, from Steve Bannon to Noam Chomsky, is soaked in misogyny, the misogyny we as women don't actually hear on a day to day basis. The casual, relentless women hatred shared between men we know well, the misogyny directed directly at us.

There are many of us here in this House who work hard to expose this misogyny as we are witness to it, but the misogyny hidden from us needs exposing. That is why the transparency the government says it is committed to is so important. If we say we believe in tackling power imbalances, if we believe in ensuring the law works for everyone, we cannot stay silent. And the hatred and the offences must be seen so that they can be tackled. Now, one man in particular is apparently guilty by association rather than actually involved in these particular acts, and he is the one who is the focus of the debate today.

But it is also true that what has been revealed from these documents is that there appears to have been, over a number of years, horrendous breaches of trust and potential criminal activity amounting to misconduct in public office. Now, I would like this government, this House and our political class to take this moment to acknowledge that while this is an extreme and egregious example of an individual believing that the rules do not apply to them, such behaviour cannot continue without the consent, active or passive of others.

And that is the moment we will agree that then this is the moment that we will agree that passive or active consent to allow such behaviour in public life will Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and I have raised the point. The Prime Minister, the point. The Prime Minister, there is a broader point here, which is Lord Mandelson was appointed to the Lords. Labour for 115 years, had been promising to 115 years, had been promising to get rid of the Lords. Now the Conservatives have appointed members who have been held to. We members who have been held to. We should be getting rid of from the Lords, as have other parties.

Please. Is now not the time to opportunity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opportunity. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point and I accept that there are wider constitutional implications for what we are talking about right now, and I will come to some of those as I speak. We also we also know I will take interventions in a moment. We also know, however, that there is a long track record across politics, not just across the political spectrum, but across decades where people's talent predominantly. I say men's talent has been seen as a justification for appointment, regardless of their behaviour or their character.

And we do need to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consider behaviour and character. Yeah, I'll give way to the hon. Gentleman. Kieran Mullan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kieran Mullan. I think Mandelson refusing to believe the victims over Jeffrey Epstein was an example of misogyny, Epstein was an example of misogyny, and I think the Prime Minister deciding to appoint someone who remained friends with him is an example of passive consent. Would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

example of passive consent. Would the member agree with me? I thank the gentleman for giving way, and I will continue to explain way, and I will continue to explain in my remarks why I think this is a moment where we need to draw a line under that passive and active consent that we have seen for far too long, across all political spectrums and across the decades where people have turned a blind eye to bad behaviour. We need to know and to apply our judgement to whether somebody is suitable for public life, not just because of their talent, but because of their probity.

We have many, many systems in place in this place and in our government and in our wider political environment, which are supposed to protect the public and our institutions from people who do not have the appropriate probity for public life. My concern and the concern of many of my constituents and people across the country, and indeed my colleagues in this House, is that in some ways, individual people's apparent talent for politics is seen as something that justifies turning a blind eye, turning a blind eye to their character, their associations, and their own judgement.

I know and understand the importance of acting to ensure national security is not put at risk. I only wish we could all be so sure that the former ambassador to the United States had similar concerns. I am less convinced by the language of international relations in the government's amendment. I would seek clarity from the Minister for the justification for such a broad term, especially when, by very virtue of the nature of the relationships that should be under scrutiny via the transparency that the government says it is committed to.

The relationship between our country and others may well have been exposed to risk. Will the Minister explain how the government will distinguish between material that is prejudicial to national security and international relations, and that which is not? It is deeply concerning that there are reports in the media that this drafting is a convenient catchall to prevent material being published. It is for that reason that I seek assurances from the Minister that the government has a plan to facilitate maximum transparency by handing over relevant and sensitive documents and communications to the relevant select committees.

I know the hon. Gentleman for Torfaen mentioned that there should be scrutiny of the Cabinet Ministers. Cabinet secretaries approach that he has taken by the ISC. However, that is not the same as being given the material and having full oversight itself. I am sympathetic to the expressions of concern by my hon. Friend the Member for. For the forest of Dean. People voted Labour for change. People are convinced we are all the same. This is the moment where the probity of public life is on the line.

The actions of this government can go one of two ways. A decision to draw a line under the culture of certain people being worth the risk, or an agreement that there will no longer be situations where particular individuals, because of connections or talent, are exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of us here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right? Let us come to Stephen Flynn. Mr. Speaker, in this chamber, just under three hours ago, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom made a long overdue and Kingdom made a long overdue and welcome admission because for months, the Prime Minister and various members of the Labour Party, various Ministers, members of the various Ministers, members of the Cabinet have told us all to ignore our eyes and our ears that he did not know, that he was not aware of the relationship that existed between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein.

And today he admitted at that despatch box that he did a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disgusting. For the benefit of the House. The debate will now go through to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The debate will now go through to 7:00, so that will allow more people to speak with a longer time. Sorry for the interruption. Stephen Flynn for hours. There's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stephen Flynn for hours. There's plenty of time, Mr. Speaker. A plenty of time, Mr. Speaker. A disgusting and dark day for this disgusting and dark day for this chamber and for each and every
15:02
Stephen Flynn Portrait Rt Hon Stephen Flynn MP (Aberdeen South, Scottish National Party)
-
-
person living on these isles, because their Prime Minister because their Prime Minister admitted he knew. And of course he knew. Of course he knew. And the knew. Of course he knew. And the Guardian in 2023, Rowena mason wrote about the court documents wrote about the court documents that have been released in the United States of America, which referenced the fact that Jeffrey Epstein had maintained a Epstein had maintained a relationship with two individuals prominent in British public life. You'll know them Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson.

The Prime Minister knew just as he knew when Jim Pickard of the Financial Times asked him in January 2024 about the relationship the Prime Minister knew then he seen the photos that each and every one of us in this chamber seen of Peter Mandelson in the luxury accommodation in New York alongside Jeffrey Epstein, he knew. I'm not going to give way, I'm afraid he knew. He knew that they had a relationship and yet he ignored it. He ignored each and every victim of Jeffrey Epstein when he chose to appoint him as the ambassador to the United States of America.

And this debate, I will not give way. And this debate today is important. It's important because we get to the bottom of what Peter Mandelson did, and I will come to that. But we cannot in this chamber forgive nor forget the judgement of the Prime Minister when he chose to make that political choice a choice that members opposite have told us repeatedly was a political risk. It was not a political risk. It was a betrayal of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein because Peter Mandelson, when he continued that relationship, knew that that man was a convicted sex offender.

I said, I will not give way. The member can sit down and listen to my speech today, as his colleagues should have done on many occasions in months gone past. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this Prime Minister has not only let himself down, he has let his office down, and he has let the public down. A public who he promised changed to. He said that he would tread lightly on their lives. Do any of them believe that today? Do any of them have confidence in his judgement at the Labour Party, seriously saying to the public that they still have confidence in his judgement that we can trust him to make the big decisions when he can't even accept that a relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein should have stopped him becoming

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the ambassador to the United States of America. He's going to. Answer it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you for giving way. I do I really do think he's misreading the mood of the House. We're trying to find consensus on what is being to find consensus on what is being debated. But he talks about articles in The Guardian and what was what was in the public debate, public domain. But he will know public domain. But he will know that John Swinney stayed in Peter Mandelson's house last year in Washington. He doesn't always stay with ambassadors. He chose to.

So if he knew this was in the public domain, why? Why did he stay with Peterborough Fleur Anderson and why did he not answer the questions on this yesterday, when he was asked five times and foolish intervention the member opposite, I should have let him in. Mr. speaker, earlier, if I had known that that was going to come because he knows fine well that the First Minister of Scotland does not appoint the ambassador to the United States of America, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom does.

And I thought for once that we did have consensus in this House that the Prime Minister lacked judgement by appointing him in the first place, unless he disagrees that the Prime Minister should have appointed him this. This is thank you, thank you, thank you. This is what this debate is about. We're trying to find an agreement on how the information can be released into the into the public domain. It's not we're not grandstanding for social media or the front page of the National.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We're trying to take the country forward. Thank you sir. Yeah. Another one, Mr. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Another one, Mr. Speaker. He excels himself. And on Monday,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He excels himself. And on Monday, Mr. Speaker, in this chamber, the Prime Minister was sat at the despatch box and I. I asked him a despatch box and I. I asked him a question. I asked him two questions. I asked him, firstly to make an I asked him, firstly to make an unreserved apology to each and every victim of Epstein for his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson. He chose not to do so. I then asked him if he agreed with me at that moment in time, that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a police investigation, because I, of course, had just reported him to the police.

He chose not to. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, what he said was only the SNP would go about this in this way. Here we are two days later. Peter Mandelson is being investigated. But importantly, the Prime Minister has still not said sorry. Yeah. An abdication of his responsibility and he has had numerous, numerous occasions to do so. Another betrayal of those victims. And, Mr. Speaker, we must we must move this motion here today and support this motion to ensure that the treachery of Peter Mandelson is not ignored, to ensure that we properly understand why the Prime Minister took the decision that he took.

But let us let none of us be in any doubt that any of this, any of the discussions about manuscript amendments or amendments or motions or how we decide on anything, will matter as much to the public as the Prime Minister's lack of judgement in the first place, and that for him, that for him will lead to his departure from number ten.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was just avoiding the social media. Where's the. Let's go, let's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Where's the. Let's go, let's have a look. Natalie Fleet.
15:08
Natalie Fleet Portrait Natalie Fleet MP (Bolsover, Labour)
-
-
have a look. Natalie Fleet. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Being a member of Parliament is a huge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

member of Parliament is a huge privilege. That brings with. It a huge responsibility. Responsibility that Peter Mandelson made an absolute mockery of letting down our benches, this entire House and the country more widely. His arrogance, sense of entitlement and abuse of power was disgusting to see. But what I'm really worried about now is this story that is a story of women and how they are let.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Down, is being watched by women across the world, and they're seeing their story of abuse being seeing their story of abuse being told through the lenses of powerful men, prime Ministers, former men, prime Ministers, former princes, politicians, women victims must be at the centre of whatever must be at the centre of whatever happens next. I am so glad that we happens next. I am so glad that we are seeing paedophile Epstein files released, and I'm glad that I'm hearing cross-party consensus that more information should absolutely be public, and anyone who knows anything should declare it.

However, I will not lie, I am angry that victims and survivors have had their anonymity ripped away because of careless way their information was handled. I am angry that men trafficked, exploited, raped women at best turned a blind eye and at worst covered it up. However, I am also unbelievably, incredibly, incredibly grateful we are here today because women use their voice. They were brave. They are not alone, and they were never alone in their abuse.

At the time. They were being trafficked in the most horrendous way. My community had the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe, often by older men who thought that young, vulnerable women were absolutely fair game. I feel a huge responsibility to use my voice, and I encourage others to use theirs too. But what stays with me is while speaking up is so important, sometimes it is so difficult that the cost is life itself. I therefore want to use my platform to share the words of Virginia Giuffre.

I am sorry to say that for all that's happened, more action is needed. Much more because some people still think that Epstein was an anomaly, an outlier, and those people are wrong. While the sheer number of victims Epstein Epstein preyed upon may put him in a class by himself, he was no outlier. The way he views women and girls as playthings to be used and discarded is not uncommon amongst certain powerful men, who believe they are above the law.

Many of those men still go about their daily lives, enjoying the benefit of their power. Do you know why the world is as bad as it is? It's because people can only think about their own business and won't trouble themselves to stand up for the oppressed, nor bring the wrongdoers to light. My doctrine is this that if we only see cruelty or wrong, that we have the power to stop and do nothing, then we make ourselves share the guilt.

I hope, for a world in which predators are punished, not protected. Victims are treated with compassion, not shamed, and powerful people face the same consequence as everyone else. I yearn to for a world in which perpetrators face more shame than their victims. And when anyone who's been trafficked can confront their abusers when they are ready, no matter how much time has passed, we don't live in this world yet. I thank you. I thank her, and I know that we will use the power that we collectively have in this House to make sure that we can right historic wrongs, but we can start talking about what is happening to women and girls across the world and challenge it together, because shame must change sides.

Thank you, Doctor Kieran Mullan.
15:14
Kieran Mullan Portrait Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. >> It's a pleasure to follow the speech by the Member for Bolsover. And actually, in writing this speech, I had people like her in speech, I had people like her in mind, the Labour MPs on the other side of the benches, who I know are genuinely passionate about the issue of violence against women and issue of violence against women and girls, and they they use that passion to criticise us and what we did or didn't do in government. And I respect that.

And they sometimes use that passion to criticise their own government. And it's those MPs the Prime Minister is trying to throw under the bus today. Absolutely. It is those MPs who I think would never have agreed to the judgement the Prime Minister made, that it was worth the risk. This isn't some hidden or secret position that the government took. Ministers on the record and Minister on the record in an interview that they decided that appointing Peter Mandelson was worth the risk.

What does that mean? What are we talking about here? What is it worth? It's worth disrespecting, denigrating, betraying the victims of Jeffrey Epstein by appointing someone who chose to associate with a convicted paedophile. That is the risk that the Prime Minister chose to make. And I don't think it's the risk that the Member for Bolsover would have made. Or perhaps the deputy, the former deputy Prime Minister would have made, or many of those members. I think you would have made different judgements. There's a pattern here, and those of us not yet those of us on this side of the benches, know what it's like when prime Ministers are weak, when prime Ministers are struggling to maintain their authority, they go further and further in doing things that the members opposite don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want them to do to save their own skins. And you can come to regret supporting that. On that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way when he talks about it being worth the risk. It's not just being worth the risk. It's not just about denigrating those victims. It's also talking about those backbenchers that he's marching up backbenchers that he's marching up the hill. It is worth the risk for him to march them up the hill and then do do a U-turn later, or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then do do a U-turn later, or finally admit after so many months that he knew all along. Absolutely. And I think that. I pay tribute to the Member for Forest of Dean, and I say this as a backbencher who stood up to my government, who realised this was happening and wasn't willing to be dragged into these situations. So I don't speak from a position of self-righteousness. I've been in that position. I did what I think was the right thing at the time.

I suggest to Labour members opposite that you think very, very carefully about this because we had an admission today, after months of trying to get that out of him, drawn out of him by the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister knew that Peter Mandelson had continued his association with a convicted paedophile when he appointed him as ambassador. Oh well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Given way, and also to reflect his interventions during the course of the debate as well, which has of the debate as well, which has added to it. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne earlier on suggested a manuscript amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suggested a manuscript amendment for the ISC. If that was to come forward, would he support it? I would like to see the detail

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to see the detail of it. I think that was a helpful intervention from the former deputy Prime Minister. I think there's a way forward for us potentially, but way forward for us potentially, but I also want to just highlight that it wasn't just this one issue of whether or not he knew he was in touch with a paedophile. We also know what was publicly reported before he was appointed. He was discussing government business from jail. Epstein was with, as if we can believe the reporting.

So it wasn't just that and what more could we have known? We are Five Eyes partners with the United States. We share the most secret and confidential information with the United States. What was stopping the government from approaching the Department of Justice in America prior to the public release of these emails and saying to them, is there anything in these emails that we need to know before we appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador? We could have asked them, and I'd like the Minister to say in his summing up whether we did ask them and any response we might have had, because we're talking about what's been in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the public domain, we could have had that information as the government, at least before that. Exeter the hon. Gentleman giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Exeter the hon. Gentleman giving way. I just wondered if he shares my opinion that they don't seem to get it at all. There's rising anger get it at all. There's rising anger right across the country, and it's directed at Jeffrey Epstein and all the things that have been going on, the things that have been going on, but it's primarily becoming focussed on the Prime Minister. His position is becoming increasingly untenable, and they are not seeing what is happening in the commentary and in the press.

This is happening

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in real time. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman agrees. It's actually, I think some of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's actually, I think some of them do know. I think some of them do get it. And that's why we're seeing furious activity within the usual channels at the moment, because they actually, I think there's a whole movement of those members that were not going to be willing to support the government and voting for their own amendment today. So I think some of them get it, and I think the rest of them it, and I think the rest of them need to catch up quickly, because those that were first movers who spoke out and were clear that they weren't going to support it, they'll be able to hold their heads up high.

And let's also be clear about Mandelson's disrespect for this House. After he was appointed, we heard from the chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. I have to say, who has left. The chamber was here earlier. I'll refer to her remarks, gave a pretty poor account of why she wholeheartedly endorsed his appointment to the chair of the select committee, who's supposed to be independent and act on behalf of the House, was happy to come and explain all the reasons why she felt vetting wasn't complete.

The processes weren't up to scratch. But why then, did you not say this person should not have been appointed at the time? Yeah, we know other members of the committee said the same thing, and actually they were similarly thrown under the bus by a chair of the Foreign Affairs Select committee who endorsed his his appointment. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think that is also a disrespect to this House. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree with me that this boils down to judgement, and whether it's the Prime Minister or other on the others on those benches? There was others on those benches? There was so much known about Peter Mandelson even before he was appointed. Surely somebody should someone should have got their head out of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should have got their head out of the sand and said, hang on, folks, this isn't right. Yes. Doctor Kieran Mullan. And as I said, they decided it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And as I said, they decided it was worth the risk. Both the Prime Minister and as we understand it, his chief of staff. And there was lots of distraction today at PMQs from a Prime Minister who didn't want to accept it. Was his judgement on the line, a lot of distraction around further police investigations, other things that Mandelson had done, things that we didn't know about, what we all knew and what the Prime Minister knew, is that Peter Mandelson continued a friendship with a convicted paedophile when he made him the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ambassador to the United States of America. Grateful to my hon. Friend giving way. Does he agree with me that the Minister needs to tell us at the despatch box whether the New Statesman report today is true, that the Prime Minister was that the Prime Minister was directly told that Mandelson stayed in Epstein's flat while he was in in Epstein's flat while he was in prison, and therefore the extent of that relationship was absolutely clear to the Prime Minister when he clear to the Prime Minister when he made the decision to make that appointment.

And I know so many members opposite, because I spoke to some of them at the time, were

**** Possible New Speaker ****

uncomfortable with it, but felt obliged to go along. Doctor Kieran Mullan. My friend, is absolutely right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My friend, is absolutely right and there are many other questions that we want from the government, and that's why we're passing this motion today, a humble address rather than Madam Deputy Speaker, so that we can have access to all the information. And we've heard the information. And we've heard we've heard from the members of the IC and from other select committee chairs previously about how we can do that in a way that protects do that in a way that protects national security.

So the idea that we can't do that without breaching national security is complete nonsense. And again, I would just say to members opposite, what will the public think? How will this look to ordinary members of the public? They may well put forward technical arguments, and the government might brief various reasons on the technicalities of why they can't pass this motion, how it's all too difficult. What the public will come away from this thinking is that Labour MPs, some of them, I think not all of them Labour MPs, were willing to collude in support.

A Prime Minister who exercised catastrophic poor judgement at the expense of victims of violence against women and girls, something that is the stated aim of this government to have as its key tenet that it tackles. I think that will reflect very poorly on them, and the public will know exactly what's going on here. A rescue operation for a failing Prime Minister. I think he's on his way out. And that's the final point I make. Prime Ministers are on the way out, and they fight and kick, and they drag other people along with them.

And if you allow them to do that, you will come to regret it, because once he's gone, he'll move on. He'll be doing new things. You'll still be MPs seeking re-election at the next election,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

having been tarnished and damaged by the things he did to save his own skin. Richard Burgon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Richard Burgon. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And of course, the thoughts. Of everyone.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of everyone. Everyone in this House are with the victims and survivors of the victims and survivors of Epstein's appalling, horrific abuse. Epstein's appalling, horrific abuse. But the motion today that we're discussing, focusing focuses on something very particular, not just what is known now, not just what has been revealed in the last few days. Conduct for which Peter
15:22
15:22
15:22
Richard Burgon Portrait Richard Burgon MP (Leeds East, Labour)
-
-
Peter Mandelson to the hugely important role of this country's ambassador to the United States of ambassador to the United States of America. In 2023, the Financial Times reported that and I quote, in June 2009, when he was the UK Business Secretary, Mandelson stayed at Epstein's lavish townhouse in Manhattan while the financier was in prison for soliciting prostitution from a minor. That was 18 months before the Prime Minister decided to appoint Peter Mandelson to the role of ambassador to the United States of America.

And at Prime Minister's Questions today, the Prime Minister said that he knew before appointing Peter Mandelson that Peter Mandelson had maintained a relationship with Epstein. So people not just in this chamber, but people out there are asking how on earth, given what was known and what is admitted, was known. How on earth did Peter Mandelson end up being appointed by the Prime

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister as the ambassador to the United States of America? I will give way. To the hon. Gentleman for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree with me that it appears that the Prime Minister turned a blind eye to what was already known about Peter Mandelson's association with the appalling sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, because he wanted essentially to cosy up to Donald Trump. Does he not agree that it Trump. Does he not agree that it looks very much like the wording of the government's amendment today, accepting papers prejudicial to international relations, effectively say the government doesn't want to release anything that might affect the Prime Minister's ability to cosy up to Donald Trump.

Does he, therefore agree that the government must withdraw this amendment to the motion today? And furthermore, does he agree that we need to do more than just deal with this? But to address the lack of public trust in politics and in this House, we need to deal with things like political donations, the pollution of misinformation and the urgent need for reform of the other place, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

indeed of electoral mechanisms in this chamber. I thank the hon. Member for her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and I agree, if the government is foolish enough to push its amendments, which I don't think we will, I will, of course vote against it because what it vote against it because what it does, it would operate to stop us getting the full and complete truth getting the full and complete truth about this matter. But I want to come on to some other points and make some progress. I know that other colleagues want to speak in this debate.

So the public are asking, how on earth did Peter Mandelson end up being appointed by the Prime Minister to the role of ambassador to the United States of America, given what was known, given what was in the public domain, and given what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box today that he did know, and I think that something that must come into that and it's not a distraction is political culture. And by that I mean the political culture that has developed within the Labour Party.

Now, that might seem tangential, but how we ended up in a situation where a nasty factionalism has operated to such an extent that the Prime Minister and his advisers have promoted and protected Peter Mandelson when so many honest, decent Labour people around the country have been unreasonably punished and prevented from standing for office. We've all heard of Labour councillors who weren't allowed to stand for council, perhaps because they'd liked a tweet from a member of the Green Party or some such.

We all saw how Andy Burnham was prevented, pushed by the Prime Minister from even standing for Parliament. Yet at the same time, Peter Mandelson was promoted, a ways were found round other people standing for fairly minor positions, but a way was found by the Prime Minister and his advisers to push Peter Mandelson over the line into the office of USA of the ambassador to the USA. And I think the reason for that was quite simple. One of the reasons was a nasty political factionalism.

The reason that Peter Mandelson has looked upon so favourably by the Prime Minister and people around him, is because he made his name kicking the left in the Labour Party, and he boasted about that. So I believe that clouded their judgement at the very least, and meant that they could find ways around what was known in the public domain, find excuses to push him over the line. When this was discussed some time ago in this place, I asked in this chamber many months ago how it was that, given what was known, Lord Mandelson at the time retained the Labour whip, while hon.

Friends from this side were still suspended from the lip from the whip for voting to add scrapping the two child benefit cap to the government's programme in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the King's Speech. And I will give way to my honourable. Friend, to my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend, to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree with me that if the government is serious about its commitments around about its commitments around transparency, that internal materials, internal communications in the Labour Party that involve in the Labour Party that involve Peter Mandelson in any shape or form need to be preserved and be form need to be preserved and be released and be included in any upcoming or ongoing investigations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Richard Burgon. I do agree with my hon. Friend says, and I want to put on the record that my hon. put on the record that my hon. Friend who just made that very important intervention was treated important intervention was treated terribly by this party, by people around the Prime Minister, by people in the party bureaucracy, people in the party bureaucracy, whilst at the same time these people had found reasons to turn a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people had found reasons to turn a blind eye or make excuses for what was known. And I will give way. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Would you agree with me that really what is at stake here is at a time when ever trust in the country across the UK is at a low, what the public will see and victims and survivors out there is the wagons being circled, no matter the party. And that is a very real

**** Possible New Speaker ****

casualty of this today. Would you agree? I totally agree with what the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I totally agree with what the hon. Member has said, and she's made that point very powerfully indeed. And it's no wonder that indeed. And it's no wonder that trust is at an all time low in politicians in general. Because politicians in general. Because what this affair also shines a light upon is the the role of the light upon is the the role of the rich and powerful, and the relationship between some at the top of politics and some of those richest and most powerful men in the world.

Now, Peter Mandelson has always, I would say, had an unhealthy fascination for the super rich and the powerful. It's, after all, he. That said, he was intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich. But I would contend as well. I do think that with this serious debate, we need full honesty. As I alluded to before, one of the main reasons, one of the main reasons that Peter Mandelson was let off the hook and eased into one of the most important offices he could be given by the Prime Minister, was because of his role in internal Labour Party factional affairs, and that is just completely wrong.

I mean, I'll quote Peter Mandelson, I'll quote Peter Mandelson, who said I work every single day in some small way to bring forward the end of his term in office. Referring, of course, to the right hon. Member for Islington North. And that comment was made whilst he was leader of the Labour Party, and Lord Mandelson was a Labour Party member. And I would say that that is the reason he was so grateful for the job that Peter Mandelson did.

Kicking the left again and again in the Labour Party that they turned. I will give way shortly. I think the Prime Minister would be really delighted if you if I did give way to come to an important point. So basically so the the point I'm making is that the reward for that factional role that he boasted about, that he revelled in, the reward for that, was that a blind eye was turned to the fact that the Prime Minister knew of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Geoffrey Epstein.

The reality is, and I will give way in a second. The reality is that Peter Mandelson wouldn't have made it onto a panel of local election candidates in the Labour Party, yet he wouldn't have made it into the Parliamentary Labour Party as a candidate for the general election. Yet because of his factional role and his relationship with the super rich, that quite frankly stinks, he was eased into the position of ambassador to the United States of America. And that's the truth, whether or not people choose to Martin.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way, and this is an important debate that deals with corruption on an deals with corruption on an international scale. It deals with victims, women and girls who've victims, women and girls who've been victimised over years. And could I just ask the hon. Gentleman could I just ask the hon. Gentleman to lift his eyes above factional to lift his eyes above factional labour politics and focus on the issues at hand?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point I'm making is it may not. It may not have understood. Maybe that's the the liberal position to that's the the liberal position to these things. I don't know what I'm talking about is the fact that talking about is the fact that victims of sexual abuse were put second to factional politics. The second to factional politics. The point I'm making is that this dirty, grubby internal factional behaviour overrode these considerations. So overrode these considerations. So in fact, I don't disagree with him.

That's the point I'm making, that these things, the lives of survivors, should have been put first. The, the the risk that Peter Mandelson posed to national security and his deep inappropriateness for the role of USA ambassador should have been put first. So it may be that he misunderstood me and misunderstood me, but that's the very point I'm making and the public deserve the truth. They need to know the full truth. They need to know who argued for Peter Mandelson, despite what was is known about his relationship with Epstein, who argued for him to be pushed over the line and put into the role of ambassador to United States of America, who warned against it.

And what was the role of the advisers around the Prime Minister. And I think that is fundamentally important. We can't have a situation that the public quite rightly view as totally unacceptable, because we need to know and nothing should prevent it. Exactly how this happened, because the public, the public are completely baffled and completely disgusted. And the point has been made that we need to clean up our politics. And of course, that means no jobs for the boys when they're completely, deeply inappropriate and deeply unsuitable for it.

Of course, that means looking at the role of big money in politics. Mandelson was infatuated by the rich and powerful in the same way that he was infatuated by the factional politics within the Labour Party. And these things resulted. These things resulted in him being appointed to that position, despite what was known. And so I'll finish on this. The manuscript amendment may be brought, I don't know. It may satisfy members on this side of the House and on the other side of the House, I don't know, but no manuscript amendment will rub away this crisis.

No manuscript amendment, no nothing that can be said in this House will remove the fact that the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States of America, despite what was admitted, was known at the time, is literally in defensible, literally indefensible. And I think it is really, really telling that not a single member on any side of the House has tried to defend that today, although they have defended it previously. And so I'll just end on that.

And I just want to come back to to the point that my hon. Friend tried to make. We can't have appointments in this country suborned to people's friendships, all the role that they have played in the factions in in an internal party that puts the national interest at risk. It can put national security at risk. The Prime Minister has said country first, party second. What we can't have is faction first, country second. And I think that's what happened with the indefensible decision to appoint Peter Mandelson to this important role, despite the fact it was in the public domain that he continued his relation.

Relations with Epstein. When Epstein was in prison for soliciting child prostitution. Yeah.
15:37
John Lamont Portrait John Lamont MP (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, Conservative)
-
-
John Lamont. >> Thank you very much. Yeah. >> No matter which party we represent, no matter what deeply represent, no matter what deeply held differences we have, no matter how different our beliefs are, how different our beliefs are, everyone in this chamber, and 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, honesty. These principles state, without qualifications, that holders of public office should act solely in terms of public interest. The state that 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. They state that holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Peter Mandelson has broken every one of these principles and we are here.

Every single member of this House and the Other place swears an oath of allegiance to the Crown. Before we take our seats, we stand here 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, of course, 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 to its people. Peter Mandelson has betrayed that oath and betrayed Britain. The evidence is there for us all to see. In 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, which 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 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, a grooming gang for the powerful and elite, perhaps in the fullness of time. Epstein will be abused. Viewed as one of the worst grooming gang masters this planet has ever seen, and in doing so, Peter Mandelson has disgraced himself.

His actions and his lack of candour are shameful in the extreme, but it is not his actions we should be concerned about. Earlier I admitted one Nolan principle. The final one, and it is leadership that is precisely what has been lacking from this government since its formation. This Nolan principle requires public servants to challenge poor behaviour whenever 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jeffrey Epstein was known? My hon. Friend. Absolutely grateful to my hon. Friend, and grateful to my hon. Friend, and he's making a very powerful speech, grounded as it is. And the Nolan principles. Does he agree with me principles. Does he agree with me that if the Prime Minister appointed someone who went on to breach all the Nolan principles in somewhere, in a position as serious somewhere, in a position as serious as that, as the ambassador to the United States, that would be a serious issue to deal with.

The serious issue to deal with. The fact that he appointed that person who had already broken all the Nolan principles before his appointment, as well as after it. I think it makes the Prime Minister's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

position untenable. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The position of the Prime Minister, particularly after his Minister, particularly after his remarks during Prime Minister's Questions earlier, does raise very serious questions about what he serious questions about what he knew and when and why on earth. Why on earth he made that appointment. I have been doing this job as a I have been doing this job as a member of Parliament since 2017. I previously to that as a member of the Scottish Parliament for ten years.

So almost 20 years. years. So almost 20 years. Throughout that time, I have been aware of the rumours and speculation about Mandelson. Indeed, he was sacked from Cabinet on two occasions for misconduct throughout his political life. There have been question marks raised about his credibility, his conduct and his scruples. So why was Peter Mandelson able to get away with distributing sensitive privileges, privileged information while in office? Questions over Peter Mandelson character and his loyalty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to this country have to be answered. I will give way to the hon. Member who, yes. I thank the hon. Gentleman for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Like him, I have been a member in this place for longer member in this place for longer than I care to remember, and throughout that time I have seen throughout that time I have seen powerful men go unchallenged and cause havoc with our country. As a cause havoc with our country. As a result, he and I will want to change that for good, because this is well beyond any partisan concern. Does he agree with me that now is therefore the time to revisit the role of this House and this place in appointments, in scrutinising, particularly with select committees and their capacity to object to? Many people have known for too long about a number of controversial characters that they are not fit for public office.

It's time to bring back the disinfectants of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

democracy into that process. Does he agree? I think the obvious question from the hon. Lady's point is, why on earth did the Prime Minister make that appointment when there was so much information about the toxic nature around Peter Mandelson? What on earth was the Prime Minister doing? And when you, hon. Minister doing? And when you, hon. Member, the hon. Member for Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hove, the Secretary of State for Hove, the Secretary of State doing the rounds, a Cabinet member doing the rounds, saying it was worth the risk.

So clearly, even within the higher echelons of Cabinet, not least the Prime Minister, there were concerns about this appointment. Yet nobody, nobody did anything about it. This this individual who had this association with this predator, with this grooming gang master who was sharing information, who subsequently was caught sharing information with with him. Sensitive information should never have been anywhere near that important office of our ambassador to the United United States. So there are so many questions from the government that need to be answered.

But those crucial questions that the Prime Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has to answer, and for me, the Prime Minister's conduct on this is completely unforgivable. Hear, hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. Paula Barker. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Firstly, I want to Deputy Speaker. Firstly, I want to place on record that my thoughts are with the women and girls who were victims of Epstein and his were victims of Epstein and his cronies. I'm also deeply concerned with those who suffered incredible loss through the financial crisis. loss through the financial crisis. In 2008. Madam Deputy Speaker, this House is at its best when we can find common ground and put aside party politics for the good of our country.

And I believe that we are seeing that today. And as the deputy chair of both the Standards and Privileges committees, I take
15:45
Paula Barker Portrait Paula Barker MP (Liverpool Wavertree, Labour)
-
-
that responsibility seriously. And I believe colleagues would say I I believe colleagues would say I always act without fear or favour. Standards in public life and the Standards in public life and the Nolan principles are not optional to me, and they guide my work every to me, and they guide my work every day as politicians. Every single one of us in this place must be one of us in this place must be guided by them every single day. Our national security is of paramount importance, and I know that nobody in this House would want to undermine that.

During the Hillsborough law debate, it was made clear that there are existing legal protections for national security. At moments like this, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are reminded of the importance of the desperate need for the Hillsborough law and a duty of candour. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. And during this debate today, it has been clear that allowing the has been clear that allowing the ICS, ICS to have oversight is unquestionably the way forward. And at a time when public trust and confidence is at an all time low confidence is at an all time low with politicians and politics, we must individually and collectively lead the way and ensure the assure the public there is no hiding place for those who seek to betray our country for their own individual greed.

Mandelson has a chequered history within my party. Some might say he has been a cat with nine lives, being sacked from numerous positions. I cannot think of a more self-serving and self-absorbed politician than Peter Mandelson, a man who was leaking market sensitive information to a convicted paedophile and sex offender whilst the country queued outside banks and building societies wondering if their life savings had gone. A man who has benefited so much from being in this nauseous, disgusting web, he can't even remember his account being credited with $75,000.

A man who had no respect for our national security and international relations because his nose was firmly in the trough. And I also think as a party, we must investigate the culture and those that have enabled Peter Mandelson to thrive for decades, constantly putting his own needs above those of our country and party leadership is about integrity, principle and vision. These are the values of my Labour Party and we must embody them now more than ever.

And I'm really sad to say that I am ashamed of the amendment that was laid today. Amen. And I think that we have to do much, much better. Madam Deputy Speaker, so I implore my government to withdraw their amendment unless the ICS deal with the issues, because that is the right thing to do. Therefore, Madam Deputy Speaker, if it is not withdrawn, it is with a heavy heart that I must vote against my government amendment today.

And I have written to the Chief Whip earlier today to let him know of my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intentions. I will give my. There are rumours about. There may be some kind of manuscript amendment that brings something forward that members opposite do feel they can vote for. But does she agree with me that the fact that the government were fact that the government were willing to try and make Labour members opposite vote for the amendment, that they should not forget?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forget? Paula Barker. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I think I've made it clear what I I think I've made it clear what I think of the government amendment. I will end by saying, as my hon. Friend did, the Prime Minister said consistently during the general election campaign, that we must always put country before party. He promised the country that this Labour government will put country before party. I implore my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government to ensure that that is what they do today. Well. Well, said Jeremy Corbyn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, said Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And this debate is Deputy Speaker. And this debate is crucial. It's seminal. And but first of all, it's got to be first first of all, it's got to be first and foremost about the victims of the horrible web that Epstein
15:50
Jeremy Corbyn Portrait Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP (Islington North, Independent)
-
-
the horrible web that Epstein created, the abuse of women, the abduction of women, the raping of women, the secret imprisonment of women, and apparently flown in out of major cities around the world for the convenience of rich and powerful men. Utterly disgusting, depraved and abominable behaviour at every single level. And every member that's called that out is absolutely right to do so. Epstein wasn't revealed yesterday. He wasn't convicted last week. He wasn't convicted last year. He was first convicted 18 years ago.

It's not as if his record wasn't extremely well known. And it seems that we're now only debating it because of the inclusion of Peter Mandelson in all of this ghastly, nasty, vile, horrible web that was created by them. And so I think we do have a duty to do something important today. And I, for one, support the opposition motion that has been put forward and I hope it is voted on. And we don't come to some crabby deal between the government and the opposition today to get a manuscript motion that kicks the whole thing into the long grass, long way away, on the pretence that we cannot discuss it because it might affect security or might affect international relations.

Almost anything can affect international relations. And that, to me, sounds like a way in which the government would simply try and get out of it. The question is fundamentally one for the Prime Minister, and it's a bit odd that he's not here for the debate. It's a bit odd that he hasn't spoken in the debate. It's a bit odd that all he's done is said what he did today at Prime Minister's Question Time. I cannot believe that when he was about to appoint Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to Washington, he wasn't made fully aware, fully aware of all of Peter Mandelson's record.

He would have known the number of times Peter Mandelson was forced to resign, even from the Tony Blair government, because of his behaviour. He would have known all of that. He would have known Mandelson's record as an EU commissioner. He would have known Mandelson's record of an interesting relationship with global dealers in minerals and many other things. He would have known all of that, and yet he still went ahead, apparently, despite Foreign Office and other advice, to appoint Mandelson as the ambassador to Washington.

What a shame, what a disgrace and what an appalling appointment to make. And we still don't even know if Mandelson is still being paid by the Foreign Office for that. And so I think today we've got to be very stern and very clear about this. There needs to be the fullest possible inquiry into all of this. Parliament is not competent to undertake this inquiry. The Cabinet Secretary is not competent. The civil service machine is not competent because they've all been ensnared into this gilded friendly web of Mandelson.

The business contacts, the political contacts, the social contacts and under which favours were done, contracts apparently awarded this ghastly company, Palantir, trying to get hold of our National Health Service, apparently at the behest of Mandelson and others. None of us here are competent to have that inquiry. That's why I intervened, and I thank those members that did give way earlier on how the inquiry should be conducted. I think it has to be on the basis of something judicially led, independent and for the most part in the public eye, rather like eventually the government was forced to undertake the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War.

That's the nearest parallel I can find, because it needs to expose the whole web that Mandelson created and the power play that he operated on within the civil service, within the political establishment, within the media and so much else. The Member for Leeds East made a wonderful and very, very powerful speech, and I thank him for the reference he made to what Mandelson said and did about me when I was Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Labour Party.

I can just confirm to the House. Under my leadership, Mandelson had no role, no influence and no part to play because I do not trust the man. I do not believe the man and we need to make that very, very clear, because his role in British politics has been basically malign, undermining and essentially a very corrupting influence altogether. And so when we look at our politics, we need to look at the role that big money plays, the role that patronage plays, the role that turning a blind eye to crime plays, because that is what we end up with.

The national embarrassment of Mandelson being the ambassador to Washington, apparently on the basis that it was a risk worth taking in order to please Donald Trump, which I don't know if that succeeded in pleasing Donald Trump. But I did notice that at one of Donald Trump's endless press conferences, he couldn't remember who Mandelson was. So I'm not quite sure how big the impact had been on the president. And so today is a day of shame for our politics. It's a day of shame that we've got to this situation where it's now been exposed.

Epstein was very, very powerful and very, very wealthy. Obviously, there needs to be more and more examination into that. They've uncovered more files than even Julian. Julian Assange managed to uncover in Wikileaks. And these are going to be read and studied for a long time to come. And there are lots of people all around the world that were dragged into this ghastly web based on dishonesty, based on lies, based on corruption, and based on patronage. It's up to us, up to us as MPs to fess up to what's happened and make sure there is a genuinely open, independent inquiry into all of this.

And we look ourselves in the mirror about the standards of democracy we have in our society, the standards of patronage that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that continue within our society. Yes, of course. Extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, and he referred to his colleague opposite speech on factionalism. But and he made the factionalism. But and he made the point that we need an independent inquiry. One of the reasons for that will be the number of staff from Labour Together, a factional from Labour Together, a factional group within the Labour Party who were appointed to civil service posts directly after the general election, including one, I believe, Jess Sargeant to the Cabinet Offices Propriety and Constitution Group.

So we shouldn't have anyone opposite on the frontbench trying to suggest, oh, don't question the impartiality of the civil service. They undermine the impartiality of the civil service and we need an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

independent inquiry. If the public are to know, we're going to get to the truth. I think that's a very fair point

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that's a very fair point that the the member makes. And, of course, the role of factions within course, the role of factions within parties is enormous. We've seen the role that Mandelson played, that Morgan McSweeney has played and Morgan McSweeney has played and others have played in sidelining, silencing and getting rid of very good, active people within the Labour Party. And ultimately it's the Labour Party that loses as a result of it. And I was extremely grateful for the role that Peter Mandelson played in the last election.

Islington North he came along and canvassed and we won with 50% of the vote. And so he that's the only useful thing he's done for a very long time that I can remember. But the point the member makes is actually a very fair one, that it is right that Ministers and governments should be able to bring political advisers in with them into government. And I remember discussing all this with Tony Benn in the 1970s about his view that the civil service was intrinsically conservative, intrinsically reactionary, and you did need voices in there that were prepared to speak up for an alternative policy.

And I think I understand that point. But there has to be a limit somewhere about the role of the political adviser in running the civil service. That's the Rubicon they must not cross. They can advise the Minister that's reasonable, and they may have a very strong view. They may have a very different view to the civil service. That's fair enough, but they should not be there running the civil service, because if we believe in an independent civil service, then we must practice it, even though it's probably quite uncomfortable for Ministers at various times.

And so I conclude my contribution with this. I say to the government, don't come to some deal today to get past today. Don't just get through today and think, wow, we've got through that mess. And they'll put it in their diaries and say, horrible day, horrible day in the Commons. But tomorrow is another day. We'll move on. No, let's have the open public inquiry that's necessary. Let's have the understanding that we are going to turn the page on the era of patronage, of the close relationship between commercial pressure groups and lobbying in the Lords and here and all around the media, in our society, and really strive to build that open, fair, democratic society that we should all believe in.

Those that suffered in order to gain universal suffrage and democracy didn't do that. So we can develop a corrupt political system. They did it because they wanted an open, democratic, accountable system that worked for the benefit of the poorest in our society as well as everybody else. So let's pass that motion today. No deals. Pass the motion. Enquire with real seriousness into the horror show that we've heard about. Order! I must enforce the manuscript amendment to the amendment A has been tabled by the Prime Minister, and I have selected that amendment for the convenience of the House.

The manuscript amendment adds the following words to the end of the amendment, which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. Copies of the manuscript amendment are now
16:01
16:01
Scott Arthur Portrait Dr Scott Arthur MP (Edinburgh South West, Labour)
-
-
one one place too late. The. And I want to start by following on from the member from Islington North, and the point that he made about recovering Mandelson pay, or at least stopping the pay being awarded to him. I have to say, my constituents in Edinburgh South West want to go further and recover his pension as well. But I do want to start by thanking the opposition frontbench for bringing this debate today. I think it is right that we debate these issues, and I think certainly people in my constituency expect that to happen in terms of consensus.

So I think where we're at is that the SNP, Greens and Lib Dems back the original humble address. I'm not sure if your party backs it or not. Or perhaps the gentleman was just speaking on his own behalf. The concern the Conservatives seem to accept that their humble address went a little bit reckless, and they want they want to support the involvement of the Esrc. And now the government has shown leadership and brought that in. I think that's where we're at.

I think that's where we're at. I mean, feel free to correct me. Do you want to correct me? Sorry. They may want to correct me. I'm happy to take an intervention, but I did. I did expect to come here today, Mr. Speaker. Speaker, and hear a little bit more about what Mandelson was, may or may not have been getting up to during the era of Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown trying to save our economy. Gordon Brown's I have huge respect for a man of real integrity, and Alistair Darling has a predecessor in my seat again.

He was a man of great integrity and someone who I really respected. I think Mandelson, I think we can all agree, was the complete opposite of these two great men, these two political leaders of my era. And I do not doubt that once that criminal investigation is completed, there will be a public inquiry that some people are talking about. But I think it's right that we have focussed on Mandelson's links with Epstein today. And I think the Member for Bolsover made that absolutely clear about why that is so, so important.

Very happy to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very happy to. Giving way. He's just said that he thinks it's absolutely right he thinks it's absolutely right that this House focuses on Peter Mandelson's links with Jeffrey Epstein, and I welcome him for suddenly coming to that conclusion. suddenly coming to that conclusion. Can I ask him why? Then the Prime Minister felt it necessary to appoint him as the US ambassador appoint him as the US ambassador when he. After this afternoon's revolution revelation knew that he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

still had a relationship with him. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is why I am here in this debate this afternoon, because I want to see these documents released so we can understand what decisions were made. You might not guess it, but you might not. You might not guess it. Go for it, Andrew Snowden.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. We know the decision that was making. know the decision that was making. He was appointed ambassador whilst knowing that there was a relationship with a convicted relationship with a convicted paedophile, and it was worth the risk. So what is worth the risk? What is the level of relationship What is the level of relationship that is acceptable with a paedophile? Is it coffee in the morning or dinner at night? What is that level? There should be none

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that level? There should be none with a convicted paedophile. See you later, Scott Arthur.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hopefully the documents will explain what has happened. Hopefully, hopefully. I mean, can I, Hopefully, hopefully. I mean, can I, can I, can I just expand on one point? You know, I know I don't look it, but I've been around for a long time. I can remember long time. I can remember Mandelson's first lap, then his second lap, then I'm going to the Lords and now, now this third lap. Lords and now, now this third lap. So my, my general perception of him is not some it's not someone I would trust.

I would, I wouldn't, I would trust. I would, I wouldn't, I wouldn't buy a I, I wouldn't buy a second hand car from him. But that's based on that's my perception of the media. Not I've not seen, I've not seen the vetting that went through when the when the chair of the, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee went through what the selection procedure was. And I accept that as a procedure that this government has inherited, I thought it was an absolute shambles, the way what the steps that they went through, nothing.

What I would expect, I expected much, much more detail. So hopefully these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

documents will give us a bit more detail. Happy to give way. I'm grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. He's just said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for giving way. He's just said. That he wouldn't have. Bought a second. Hand car from Mandelson, so would he have made him ambassador

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would he have made him ambassador to the United States? Yeah. Based on my knowledge. Based on my knowledge of him. Absolutely not. But but but I've not seen I've not seen, I've not seen the vetting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seen, I've not seen the vetting documents as insubstantial as they appear. I've not seen them. I thank the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hon. Gentleman for giving way, given the fact that he would, that he would not have appointed rightly. he would not have appointed rightly. I think he would not have appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. Does he have any confidence that the Prime Minister, one made the right decision at that point, or can make the right decision on any other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the right decision on any other national security issue ever again? Yes. Thank God. Dalton Scott Arthur.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank God. Dalton Scott Arthur. We heard from the Prime Minister at lunchtime at length today, the Prime Minister's question time. We're going to release this information. That's a chance for people to look at this. I think we can speculate. Speculate. But what this debate is about today is about releasing releasing this information into the public domain so people can be reassured at the right decision has been made. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if it's not, we can question it. Do you want to. Stella Creasy for giving way? He

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Stella Creasy for giving way? He was here earlier when I raised the possibility of how we learn not just to deal with this situation, just to deal with this situation, and I am with colleagues who are not happy about the amendments that were originally proposed, but also were originally proposed, but also what we can do fundamentally, because the truth is, this is not the first time that we have seen the first time that we have seen controversial people appointed to positions. Does he, as a relatively new MP, share my interest in learning from other jurisdictions around the world where you have pre-appointment hearings by, say, for example, select committees that can object to a shortlist, that we toughen up the role of this place in being the eyes and ears about what good democracy practice looks like here.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gloucester Scott Arthur. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, when I really thank the hon. Lady for that point. But the description of this of the vetting procedure described by the chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee just seems so insubstantial to me, so absolutely right. We have to do so absolutely right. We have to do much better in the process of recruiting a community engagement officer. And it felt like we had more rigour in appointing that person in terms of checking the background than the process that was described.

I mean, I do have to accept perhaps, that I might have understood the process that was described. So it is right that we have focussed on mandelson's links with with Epstein. Absolutely. But I'm also reflecting on the fact that if Mandelson was not included in this data release at the weekend, perhaps we would have been speaking about Andrew Windsor and Sarah Ferguson today as well, and I think they are perhaps the winners in this. Another point earlier, I was guilty of saying the Member for Edinburgh South had misread the room in terms of how he was presenting his arguments, but he was right.

In one point, he was right when he said that Mandelson is a traitor and I think hopefully not just a traitor to the UK, but also a traitor to the survivors of sexual abuse from Epstein and survivors of sexual abuse everywhere, actually. So I think I really do think that residents in Edinburgh South West, in everywhere, expect us to work together on this today and reach consensus, and hopefully we can do that. I am still not sure that the Lib Dems, SNP and Greens are on board yet, but I think I think we're coming much closer together and I think.

So because it seemed that. Apologies. It seems that the SNP, Greens and Lib Dems perhaps were focussed, were wanting to back the original humble address rather than including the Esrc being involved in the process. That was my understanding.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lisa Smart Mr Speaker. I'm very grateful for him letting me intervene. I said explicitly in my intervene. I said explicitly in my remarks from the Lib Dem frontbench that I welcomed the Minister's openness to the Esrc being part of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this, so I'm glad he gave me the opportunity to clarify. I'm really. Grateful for the correction as ever. Perhaps I wasn't listening quite carefully as I should have quite carefully as I should have been, so I really do. Thank you. So. So just to end by thanking our frontbench for, I think, listening frontbench for, I think, listening to the arguments from this side and from right across the chamber, showing a bit of leadership and hopefully bringing us together with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

some consensus, oh, go for it, go for it. Paul Holmes I thank the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paul Holmes I thank the hon. Member for giving way. His speech is coming across to me as quite miraculous and not in a good way, miraculous and not in a good way, in that he is claiming that his frontbench have shown leadership this afternoon. Let's say to the House exactly what's happened. His leadership and his frontbench have changed and amended this legislation today or the motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation today or the motion today, because they knew that the people over there wouldn't have voted for the original one. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scott Arthur can we just can we just reflect for a second? I think the original humble address was the original humble address was reckless. It was going to put information which would have which which would have which which would have damaged our country into the have damaged our country into the public domain. And what the Minister and you could argue, you could argue that the minister's original amendment perhaps was an overreaction to that. But we were getting to a good place. We were reaching consensus, very happy to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

embrace. Specific point of our amendment then, and all things being equal, what you voted through the gone through the I lobby or the no lobby when that division was called.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On Scott Arthur. I had complete confidence in the Minister reaching consensus within Minister reaching consensus within the House today, but I would. But but but but seriously, would members opposite? Would members members opposite? Would members opposite voted for their own motion today, which would have put that sensitive information in the public domain? I really doubt it. I really doubt it. I think better of them. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Very quickly. I think our motion was very indeed very, very clear. And we do know when it comes to the IEC and how evidence and information is brought forward. My point, Mr. Speaker, was very clear. Did he would he have come with us on that motion or would he have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gone against it? Yes. Scott Arthur Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to I'm trying to sit down. So. I'll just write. I'll do so I'll. I'll do so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll. I'll do so. Marvellous. So John Whittingdale. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've had some very powerful speeches in this debate. And actually, I think it's a credit to this House that we are discussing this issue and the appalling behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein in a way that has not been discussed in Washington. However, what we have heard in the last few days has been truly shocking. The photos, the emails, the revelations of the very close nature that Peter Mandelson had with Jeffrey Epstein, which actually now raises questions, potentially, of criminality and even treason.

But beyond that, actually what the House is asking is how was it that somebody who was already established to have had to resign twice from government in disgrace, who had questions over his performance in the European Commission and then was known to
16:13
John Whittingdale Portrait Rt Hon Sir John Whittingdale MP (Maldon, Conservative)
-
-
have maintained a very close friendship with a convicted paedophile. How did that man ever paedophile. How did that man ever come to be regarded as an appropriate appointee? As our appropriate appointee? As our ambassador in Washington? That was one of the issues, and that was the critical issue which the Foreign critical issue which the Foreign Affairs Committee was anxious to examine. We did repeatedly ask that examine. We did repeatedly ask that Peter Mandelson come before the committee. He did not. We were told eventually that we had had an opportunity to speak to him briefly over breakfast when we were in Washington, and therefore that was sufficient.

It was not sufficient. We were not able to ask him any of the questions. We did subsequently have the opportunity to ask those questions of the permanent Under-Secretary of the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Secretary, and the chair of the Committee has already set set out some of the issues that were raised. But I think it is worth repeating. We were told that in the appointment of Lord Mandelson, there were three parts, that the process consisted of three stages.

The first stage, because this was a political appointment at the direct instruction of the Prime Minister, therefore, there was no interview panel, there was no fireside chat, which would normally take place between the appointing Minister and the candidate. Instead, the Foreign Office was told that this was the wish of the Prime Minister, and instead he was asked to fill in a conflict of interest form in order to understand his private interests that might have some conflict with his position.

I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful for the right hon. Member for giving way. The Prime Minister made a huge deal about a process, having gone about a process, having gone through when he was answering questions from the Leader of the Opposition earlier today. If I Opposition earlier today. If I understand him correctly, is it that the process was the Prime Minister wanted Peter Mandelson?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, well. That was made absolutely clear right from the start. Indeed, the permanent Under-Secretary described this as a political appointment which was the direct instruction of the Prime Minister. But I do want to just go through the three stages. So this first stage, the conflict of interest form, as the chair of the select committee, actually brought out essentially what this consisted of was Peter Mandelson being asked to fill in a form and to choose what to put down on it.

And there was no subsequent questioning about anything that did not appear on his form. The form, of course, is something that we have not seen, and I hope that as part indeed, I believe that as part of the motion which we are likely to pass today, that form should now be made public. Also, as part of the potential conflict of interest I did raise with the permanent Under-Secretary the question of Lord Mandelson's continuing shareholding in Global Counsel, the Permanent Secretary replied to me, this was honestly the hardest bit of the process for both of us.

Lord Mandelson was a founder of the company. While he was confident that he could conduct his role as ambassador without giving rise to a conflict, we wanted to make sure we mitigated that possibility in some ways. So the conclusion was not that Lord Mandelson should dispose of his shareholding. Instead, there was some Chinese walls put in place which would ensure that he wasn't aware of who the clients of Global Counsel were, or indeed the work being undertaken. And I listened with concern to the speech from my hon.

Friend on the frontbench about the meeting that took place with Palantir. I think that that raises real questions about the effectiveness. Just one second, the effectiveness of the so-called undertakings that were put in place

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by the Foreign Office. And we need to understand that, of course. I advise I thank you for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I advise I thank you for allowing me, but I rise with incredulity, incredulity, to learn that the interest was there was not that the interest was there was not a requirement to dispose of the interest. I recall going through ethics and propriety when being ethics and propriety when being made a Minister, that it would be entirely inappropriate to hold things. I know of colleagues who had to dispose of interest. Would had to dispose of interest. Would you agree with me that if the noble Baroness Grey was perhaps still running propriety and ethics, something like this would not have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happened? So John Whittingdale, I completely share the view of my right of like like her. I too went through a process in which I was required to get rid of rather smaller shareholding interests than the one held by Lord Mandelson. But the one held by Lord Mandelson. But this is just one of a huge range of questions which to which we need to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

questions which to which we need to know the answer. The second stage of the process. Can move on from that stage. My I. Alicia Kearns one other appointment we've had, and some might argue he is the de facto foreign secretary, is the national security adviser, Jonathan Powell. How can we have confidence that he went through the appropriate vetting, not least when he's running around having secret meetings with Wang Yi and other Chinese senior officials cannot have confidence it was done in the American ambassador, our ambassador to America.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

John Whittingdale. Well, I mean, I think once we get the revelations of the documents as to precisely of the documents as to precisely what got occurred in the case of Lord Mandelson, that is bound to raise questions about whether what procedures were followed in the case of other appointees, and particularly the one that she raises, Jonathan Powell, who in many ways is the foreign secretary of this country. The second stage of this country. The second stage of the process, we were told, was the due diligence carried out by the Cabinet Office.

The due diligence consisted of identification of information and a second part of it, which was judgement about it. However, all of the information that was obtained in the due diligence was actually in the public domain already. There was no additional investigation take place. It was simply essentially an internet trawl. That report, the due diligence report, was presented to the Cabinet Secretary for onward transmission to the Prime Minister. However, even at that time, actually due diligence through an internet trawl would have already shown up the fact that Peter Mandelson had been to stay in the townhouse belonging to Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction.

So the continuing association after his conviction had already been reported in the press and therefore was bound to form a part of the due diligence process. And the question which has been raised several times in this debate already, which is when the appointment was made, did the Prime Minister know and we understand that potentially he did, which I assume was contained in the due diligence report that was put directly to the Cabinet Secretary? Did you tell the Prime Minister about Mandelson staying in the Manhattan townhouse when Epstein was in jail and all that the Cabinet secretary said to us was, I will consider whether there is further information that can be shared and write to the committee.

We have never had a full answer to that question. And then the third part of the process was the developed vetting, which we are told is a usual process for very senior appointments. It consists of a wide range of different investigations. We're told it staff files, company records, checks, check of spent and unspent criminal records, credit history, a check of security service records and an interview not just of the candidate, but also of the referees, which have been supplied by a trained investigating officer.

I think we will need to see the outcome of that report, even if it can only be provided, as the government has now conceded, to the Intelligence and Security Committee. But taken together with those three processes, the Prime Minister still decided there was no obstacle to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States. We then come to the question put to him a Prime Minister's questions, following the Bloomberg report of the large number of emails, the Foreign Office learnt of those emails the night before Prime Minister's Questions and I pressed the permanent Under-Secretary as to whether or not number ten had been told that these emails contained material evidence which could potentially change the whole perception of Lord Mandelson's relationship.

He said that he had a duty of care to Lord Mandelson and therefore he needed to make checks. He essentially told us that number ten had not been informed. I find that very hard to believe. As somebody who used to prepare the Prime Minister for answering questions, the idea that something was not told to the Prime Minister of that order seems absolutely extraordinary. But there is another question which I think needs to be asked. The British government say that they discovered of all these emails, which proved that the relationship was very long standing and much closer than had ever been admitted by Lord Mandelson.

They discovered them because Bloomberg obtained copies in a leak. They were held by the US government in the Department of Justice. For months. The US government knew all about them, but it was only when we're told Bloomberg obtained them, that the British government found out. Of course, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Believe it's conceivable, then, that the government did not ask, is that the government did not ask, is there any kompromat on the on that basis, because it seems incredulous that this has been known about, as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he rightly pointed out in his speech for years. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. And I think there are two possible questions. The first is why didn't the British government why didn't the British government ever ask the US government who they knew had all this material from Jeffrey Epstein, whether it contained any additional information that might be relevant to the appointment of Peter Mandelson or equally, our relationship, we are told, with the United States, is so close we share intelligence.

Is it really the case that they didn't feel necessary to tell us? Either way, it is an appalling breakdown in communication and I have to say, I find it very difficult to believe these are all questions which we pressed the permanent Under-Secretary on, that we press the Cabinet Secretary on and we failed to obtain any answers. And I have to say that my confidence in a further investigation by the Cabinet secretary is actually influenced by his failure, really, to answer any of these these questions, when he came before the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

select committee the first time? Of course I do. I'm very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way once the hon. Friend for giving way once the Bloomberg leak had been done. I'm sure my right hon. Friend remembers sure my right hon. Friend remembers that many of us asked the government. Surely now that these things have turned out to be true, things have turned out to be true, surely we should now turn Lord Mandelson. Peter Mandelson inside Mandelson.

Peter Mandelson inside out, as if he had become outed as a spy. And and surely the things which have now been released over the weekend would have come out. Is he surprised, like I am, that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government did not seem to do the investigation into Peter Mandelson subsequent to him being fired? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I completely share the astonishment expressed by my hon. astonishment expressed by my hon. Friend. And as further revelations come out about the behaviour of come out about the behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein, particularly in relation to his links with Russia relation to his links with Russia and other hostile powers, you would have thought then again, the government would say, please, if there is anything involving Peter Mandelson, we wish to know about this, the potential damage to our national interests that may have occurred as a result of Lord Mandelson's continuing to feed information to Jeffrey Epstein is huge, and that is something which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has not yet even begun to be properly exposed. Would my right friend. I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would my right friend. I'm grateful to my right hon. Friend. In his interrogation of the permanent Under-Secretary of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Cabinet Secretary, was he able to shed any light on another part of our motion about whether there was any severance payments made to Lord Mandelson, how much they were? Because if there were payments made, we should be seeking to get them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we should be seeking to get them back for the taxpayer. Yeah. My hon. Friend is absolutely right and actually anticipates my exact next point. I asked the question. I asked the question to the permanent Under-Secretary whether or not he was still on the Civil service payroll. I was told he was not. I was asked whether or not a settlement. I asked whether or not a settlement payment had been made, and I was told that he he had resigned, but that his contract would be honoured.

And when I asked whether or not that included a payment, I was told it was a confidential matter between him and the civil service, but that if that, I will see if I can actually find find it because the exact wording is worth my just quoting again. So I said, so the Foreign Office is not going to give any information as to whether the payment was made to him, to which the permanent Under-Secretary said any implications of his termination will be reported in our annual report and accounts.

But termination payments below a particular threshold, which I think is £300,000, do not get itemised. So I think I think the I think the quick answer is no. However, I hope that again, that is something which the government has now indicated will be made public. Yeah. I want to conclude by my remarks by saying,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of course, I recognise that. Just before he. PQ just before I do. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm really grateful. For. The right hon. Gentleman for giving way. And I'm just thinking about the response that he got from the permanent Under-Secretary. Do you think that was a permanent Under-Secretary trying to be Under-Secretary trying to be helpful to his committee, or do you think that was obfuscation and telling elected members of Parliament to get their nose out of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parliament to get their nose out of his business? I say to my friend, I regarded the whole session as a sort of masterpiece. In Sir Humphrey speak. It was an awful lot of words, conveying very little substance. But I just want to come back to this point. I absolutely understand the necessity of not revealing information that may be damaging to national security, but I think it's 1 or 2 members have already said, actually, transparency is really important here, and therefore I hope that the government will make public as much as is possible, and certainly as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I will be pressing that the committee look at this.

All the information that is published and follow up on the rather unsatisfactory session that we already had. Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to conclude with my overall impression, having looked at this process in some depth, it was clear that the Prime Minister wanted Peter Mandelson to be our ambassador in the United States. The Foreign Office had to conduct the usual procedures, and we heard about the three parts of the process. But I believe that the message was very clearly sent to the Foreign Office.

Go through your motions, but make sure that it ends up with his approval being granted, and that that has been the overriding impression that to some extent, boxes were ticked. But the Foreign Office were told very clearly he is to be the next

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ambassador. And that was a direct instruction of the Prime Minister. Andrew Lewin.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Andrew Lewin. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must start by putting on record I must start by putting on record my horror at the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, as so many hon. Members have done today. This man is a have done today. This man is a paedophile and a perpetrator of evil acts. The pain of the victims evil acts. The pain of the victims and their families must be unimaginable. And I want to pay tribute to the speech made by my hon.

Friend the Member for Bolsover earlier today, which was incredibly brave and powerful, and my words cannot match hers. But if you were
16:30
Andrew Lewin Portrait Andrew Lewin MP (Welwyn Hatfield, Labour)
-
-
not in the chamber, I urge all colleagues to watch that speech here. I think it's clear, Madam here. I think it's clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the House is united in disdain of the actions of united in disdain of the actions of Lord Mandelson. And it was always my intention to speak briefly this afternoon, and it was always my afternoon, and it was always my intention to talk about this being an opportunity for the House to an opportunity for the House to come together, because I think it's unmistakeably the case that when we talk to our constituents, constituents, so often people will say, why don't you talk to each other like human beings? Why don't you respect each other? Why don't you respect each other? Why is this place a pantomime so often? Yeah, but it isn't always the case.

And today absolutely has not been the case. We do respect each other. I've been here for 18 months. I have the humility to say I have much to learn about this place. But there are many people on all sides of this chamber who I admire greatly. And this afternoon, just to call out a few of them, the Member for North Dorset speech, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the very important intervention of the former deputy Prime Minister, which I'll come to a little bit later.

The interventions from the Member for Rutland and Stamford, Madam Deputy Speaker it is not just today that we listen to each other and should listen to each other. One example that members who know me will know I'm a passionate pro-European. I define as a social democrat and internationalist. Some will cheer that, others will not. One who probably would not and is not in his place today is the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. There isn't a huge amount that we would agree on, but whenever he speaks on international affairs, I do my utmost to come and listen to him because of the experience that he has in this house, and I'm very surprised to see he's not in his place today.

But the Member for Strangford, the only thing that matches his number of interventions in Westminster Hall is his decency as a man and as a parliamentarian. So I wanted to put all of that on the record. The focus today, of course, though rightly, has been on Lord Macclesfield, on Mandelson. There is unity in contempt for his actions, the scandalous and the brazen way in which government information was leaked, how we undermined the government and his colleagues seemingly at every turn.

His actions will offend every British citizen, every public servant and every member of this House. It's why decisive action was needed, and it's why this debate this afternoon was so important. I do wholeheartedly welcome the decision that has been made and proposed by the government. The Intelligence and Security Committee will determine which documents are released, and I want to commend the courage of those who made that argument earlier today, not knowing if they would be successful in making their case, but also the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

courage of the government to accept those recommendations. The hon. Gentleman. I will. I thank the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman. For giving way on that point, and he is articulated very eloquently how we have come eloquently how we have come together in this House, both to roundly condemn the role that Mandelson has played in the corrupt web around Jeffrey Epstein, but web around Jeffrey Epstein, but also that we have come out to say together we must have all the full facts laid bare, and I hope that he will join me in congratulating the government on conceding and putting forward the amendment for independent scrutiny by the ISC, so that they will oversee the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disclosure of the appropriate documents. Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, and that's why I began my remarks by saying this has been an important day for this House, because I day for this House, because I sincerely believe that we are collectively in a much better place now than we were when we started

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the debate. I will. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for the the tone of giving way and for the the tone of the speech that he is giving. He talks about us being having moderate language and being representatives, our constituents. And I agree with him. But in addition to that, we are elected to this place, hopefully because of our judgement and the trust of our electorate. Now, whatever the outcome of this debate and whatever the outcome of those documents, we already know that the public knew, the media knew, our constituents knew, we all knew.

And we discovered at about 12:00 today, the Prime Minister knew that Lord Mandelson had a close personal relationship with a convicted paedophile. Does he think the Prime Minister can still command the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trust of this House and the public? Yes, very well sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, very well sir. I think there are unquestionably things that we did not know. And I listen incredibly carefully to the listen incredibly carefully to the Prime Minister in PMQs today. And he was clear, and it was a personal he was clear, and it was a personal statement for him, that he has felt lied to at every single stage of the process. And the precise reason the process. And the precise reason why I think everybody in this House wants to see as many, every single document published that we possibly can is to get to the bottom of that.

But I believe the Prime Minister all I'll make some progress. All of this, all of us in this House deserve the truth. Everyone in the country deserves the truth. And most importantly of all, so does every victim. Mandelson Mandelson's time in public life was a very dark chapter. It is the duty of this house to shine a light on it and give the public the answers that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they absolutely deserve. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. This situation stinks. Peter Mandelson maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after he had been convicted. This wasn't before anyone knew about his grotesque crimes, not when it was being whispered about, but after his conviction, when the world knew exactly who and what Jeffrey Epstein was. Yet before his
16:36
Zarah Sultana Portrait Zarah Sultana MP (Coventry South, Your Party)
-
-
Epstein was. Yet before his appointment as ambassador to the United States, senior Labour MPs went on television and social media to praise him. Members sitting opposite today, they knew the facts because by that point it was already public knowledge that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein's New York home while Epstein was serving time as a convicted paedophile. When asked about this last September, the Prime Minister told this House he had full confidence in Peter Mandelson, despite knowing about his close relationship with Epstein.

That's right, the leader of the Labour Party and the Prime Minister had full confidence in a man that was besties with a convicted nonce. What a disgrace. And what we are witnessing is not accountability. It is the Westminster Club protecting its own. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not just about this Labour government. Large sections of the media also play their part. Mandelson didn't simply drift back into public life. He was rehabilitated, rebranded, presented as respectable. He was welcomed on the BBC's flagship programme as a wiser elder statesman, given differential treatment by The Spectator, The Guardian and The Sunday Times.

These are the same outlets that lecture relentlessly about standards and morality when it is a trade unionist, a protester, a working class person who puts a foot wrong. But when it's one of their own, the tone changes. Suddenly. It's about experience, pragmatism. It's about getting things done. This is how power protects itself. And what about the victims, the girls and the young women abused by Epstein? They received an apology by Mandelson only after after sustained pressure. It was not freely given, not offered because it was the right thing to do.

And until recently he still enjoying enjoyed the zone two dinner party treatment with magazine style PR photos of Mandelson being published only this week. Then, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is the money. At least $75,000 was transferred from Epstein to Mandelson. He says he can't remember the transactions if £75,000 landed in the bank account of almost anyone else in the country, they definitely would remember to claim otherwise is contemptuous and goes to the heart of why trust in politics is collapsing.

If those in power can't remember vast sums of money flowing into their accounts, then why should the public believe that they are acting in their public interest? Madam Deputy Speaker, this has only come to light because American authorities released the Epstein files. We are told that the UK has no record of Mandelson's emails. If those files hadn't been released, he would have sailed back into public life, shielded by friendly journalists and wealthy backers. That's how broken our political culture has become.

And now further emails have emerged, raising serious questions about whether market sensitive information was leaked while he was at the heart of government. When ordinary people make mistakes, they pay the price. Nurses are disciplined, teachers are suspended, care workers lose their jobs. But if you belong to the Westminster Club, you can be linked to one of the most notorious predators of our time and still reach the top. Yes point. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable. Member for giving way. I wonder if if if she agrees

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder if if if she agrees with me that potentially every single working person, retired single working person, retired person or child in this country has paid the price for some of these comments? Because if if Mandelson comments? Because if if Mandelson did indeed share information relating to the financial crash, it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has cost everybody a fortune. And he owes every member of this country an apology. Hey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely agree this is a systemic issue and that's why I support the calls for an support the calls for an independent, judge led public inquiry. Madam Deputy Speaker, yes. inquiry. Madam Deputy Speaker, yes. Peter Mandelson was eventually removed as US ambassador, but he remained in the House of Lords and remained in the House of Lords and as a Labour Party member until three days ago. So the Labour Party cannot pretend that this was some cannot pretend that this was some distant mistake, quietly corrected a long time ago.

This was a decision they defended until they were forced to abandon it, and he should never have been appointed in the first place. If this Labour government believes that the appointment was proper, then it should stop stonewalling and prove it. Publish all the documents, the vetting, the advice, the risk assessments, the correspondence and the contracts, including Palantir. Instead, the Prime Minister tabled an amendment to withhold any papers deemed prejudicial to national security or international relations. We know that when governments fear scrutiny, they wrap themselves up in the flag and hope that the public will look away.

If there's nothing to hide, why carve out broad exemptions in advance? And the government's last minute manufacturing manuscript amendment is a desperate attempt to control dissent on the Labour backbenches. This is not accountability. It is not transparency. It's delay and it's damage control. They are kicking the can down the road in the hope that the outrage will fade and the questions will go away, while they won't. And that's why I'm supporting calls for an independent, judge led public inquiry. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not just about Peter Mandelson.

It is about a system that protects the powerful and disregards the public. The victims deserve better, the British public deserve better. So the government must publish all the documents and the corruption and the cover up, and stop insulting the public with empty words when what we need is transparency. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister said he had full confidence in Peter Mandelson. While the public has no confidence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in him, he should do the honourable thing and resign. Yes. Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, there is an old proverb that may indeed be of Russian extraction, which maybe of Russian extraction, which maybe would be fitting enough, and it says this tell me who your friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

says this tell me who your friend is, and I will tell you who you are. Yeah.
16:42
Jim Allister Portrait Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)
-
-
>> Yeah. >> And doesn't that sum up Peter Mandelson? Yeah. The friend of the child abuser, the friend of Jeffrey Epstein. He is the living personification of that proverb. He is a man apparently so corrupted in his own morals that he thinks what he did was OK and perhaps corrupted financially. And that corruption, of course, is the product of his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intoxication as a freeloader on the rich and the powerful. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. And he has brought us to a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And he has brought us to a very sorry pass indeed. But the abiding two words that will live from today two words that will live from today relate to the Prime Minister. And they are. He knew.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they are. He knew. Yeah, yeah. That is what will long outlive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this debate. Yeah. He knew when he appointed him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He knew when he appointed him. Yeah that he had this ongoing Yeah that he had this ongoing relationship with Epstein. He told us today but he didn't know the us today but he didn't know the depth of the relationship. Sorry. It's not about depth. It's not a It's not about depth. It's not a question of skill. It's a question of was there a relationship. Yeah. And the very fact there was should have been enough. Yeah. For any Prime Minister.

Yeah. And that calls fundamentally into question the judgement of our Prime Minister. Our Prime Minister, and he is our Prime Minister is a man who has to, on the world stage, make fine judgements day and daily. He has to make judgements that affect us all. And if on a matter so glaring as this, his judgement is patently and fatally flawed, yeah, then it does raise fundamental question of how we can trust the Prime Minister's judgement.

Even those who knew Peter Mandelson tangentially, would have had enough suspicions to question his appointment. We in Northern Ireland know something of it. He was our Secretary of State at the turn of the century, for two years, until he had to resign over the passport application scandal. I then next encountered him when I was a member of the European Parliament, when he was the United Kingdom's commissioner in the EU Commission, appointed then as the Trade Commissioner from 2004 to 2008.

And that was not controversial. Uncontroversial, 2006 I well remember in the European Parliament controversy about the fact that he had been holidaying on a yacht with an Italian tycoon whose business had benefited from his imposition of EU anti dumping tariffs on Chinese shoes, and the Italian manufacturer of Chinese of shoes was a beneficiary of those anti-dumping

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tariffs there. He was months later on his yacht. Wow.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wow. Two years later, he was on another yacht. It must be something another yacht. It must be something about yachts in Corfu with a about yachts in Corfu with a Russian oligarch. Mr. Mandelson, as trade commissioner, had just cut the EU import tariffs on aluminium, benefiting the Oligarch's company Rusal, who were in the business when the aluminium business. Yes, sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

John Grady government. And would you agree with me that there may be some considerable merit in both the some considerable merit in both the Commission and the Parliament just looking over their paperwork to see precisely where these things link precisely where these things link and whether he breached rules when he was serving as a commissioner.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The point I was coming to it, sadly, maybe the European Union sadly, maybe the European Union being the European Union, there was no great interest in investigating those matters. They were rather swept under the carpet. But I do say this to the government, he was there as the United Kingdom's commissioner on the commission, and I think that gives status and opportunity to venture into inquiries about those matters. And then, of course, he came back to be sacked again.

Now, all of that is largely in the public domain. Before we come next or near a Epstein. Yeah. And yet equally in the public domain at the point of appointment was the knowledge that he had this ongoing relationship with a man who, upon his release from prison for his child abuse, Mandelson described it as his liberation. And our Prime Minister decided he was a suitable person to be our ambassador and probably the most important capital in the world in Washington.

That was a theatre for all of judgement by the Prime Minister. And it will, I fear, hallmark much of his premiership, that a man who made a decision such as that, and then came to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House in September. Yeah. When these things began to leak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When these things began to leak out and expressed his confidence in Mandelson. So not just had we the flawed judgement in appointing him, we then had the continuing we then had the continuing upholding of him by the expression of confidence, until finally the Prime Minister ran out of road on this issue. But he is left hanging around his neck. That fatal flaw and misstep. And it's more than that in in appointing him, it was a fatal mistake, a flaw of judgement.

And it does raise a fundamental point as to the on going credibility of this Prime Minister. And that is that is the abiding

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legacy of this situation. Yeah, yeah. Doctor Luke Evans.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Luke Evans. Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. It's a slightly obscure quote, and it comes from a Trojan priest, and he was the one who spotted the warning because many of you know, warning because many of you know, the wider story of the Trojan horse. He said, Beware of Greeks bearing gifts, because actually, the moral of the story in terms of the Trojan Horse was the fact that warnings were there and they were ignored. That's fundamental to what we're
16:50
Luke Evans Portrait Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
-
seeing here today, because Troy didn't fall, because there was no didn't fall, because there was no warnings. It was because they were dismissed, sent away, ignored. The dismissed, sent away, ignored. The advice was ignored, and it led to catastrophe. And let's apply that catastrophe. And let's apply that to our Prime Minister today. He appointed an ambassador, known appointed an ambassador, known literally for decades as the Dark Knight, for operating behind the scenes. That was his reputation, not only on that basis, he was sacked not once, but twice from his Cabinet roles.

So every instinct in me says no other member of parliament, both on this side or the other, would think they are a suitable candidate to be ambassador of this great nation to one of our greatest allies. And we've heard we can't have more information because of national security. Rubbish. But this side of the House, we're not asking to see the blueprints of the horse or the set out of the blueprints of the walls of Troy. No, we're simply asking, was he warned before he wheeled through the Trojan horse that is Mandelson into government? Did he receive any information? Did he know anything? And I was thinking about this point this morning until we heard the Prime Minister speak today at Prime Minister's Questions.

As has rightly been pointed out only in the speech before me, he did know this is an analogue or digital. He knew he knew there were concerns. And yet he went on and made an appointment. So this is not about the intelligence that we're looking at, but actually the judgement to understand whether advice was given and whether it was followed. It's not how that advice was written, it's simply whether or not it was inferred, passed on and ignored. Now, what hasn't been mentioned in this debate is that we've been round this once before.

We had a Standing Order 24 debate. For those of you who remember, only just before Christmas, and at that time, I raised the point, why did the Prime Minister not come to the House? He is the one, by his own admission, who makes the decisions. He therefore knows all the answers. And when he came into government and he stood at the doors of number ten, he said he wanted to do things differently. All he has proved is that he doesn't have the leadership to come and answer the very questions that need to be put to him yet again.

We're spending parliamentary time debating about whether there will be information released, which he knows himself. He could have spent the next five hours that we're going to spend debating this, answering the questions and setting this right, but instead, he's not here hiding. Now, you'll often answer well, convention states that no other prime Ministers did it. Well, actually, some of them did. But more importantly, this Prime Minister said he was going to be different. This Prime Minister told

**** Possible New Speaker ****

us he wanted to see change. On that point. I will take. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I found today shocking where the Prime Minister has openly where the Prime Minister has openly admitted that he knew that Mandelson had an ongoing relationship with a convicted relationship with a convicted paedophile at the time he appointed him. Yeah, and anything else we discussed today that goes against discussed today that goes against any value I stand for in my life, any value my constituents will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stand for. Does my hon. Friend believe that it's untenable for the position? Yeah, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think he's absolutely right. Because as Troy fell, because leaders ignored when the horse was leaders ignored when the horse was at the gate, the advice given, then prime Ministers fall for the same reason. And so he is either saying reason. And so he is either saying his judgement was so catastrophic that he didn't see what all of us have instinctively, or that he have instinctively, or that he chose to ignore the information. And both of them either outcome, are the problem facing us today.

Yeah. Now, it's customary in these kind of debates for me to pose questions towards the ministerial team here, but actually, I'm not going to do that. My question is to the people behind them, because why are we having a humble address? This is the very opportunity, the very literal reason we have humble addresses. They exist in moments like this for when there's stalling in scrutiny, when we can't get the answers that this House demands, when there's obfuscation and no way forward.

We are asking today, the monarch to compel the government to give that information out. And that's not important just for the party politics, but important for both sides of this House and the wider country. Now, the House and the motion doesn't ask the other side to condemn. It simply asks to clarify. We need to know who said what, when, why, who knew what, with whom, and what were the discussions. I think that's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

something that could be supported on all sides of the House. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Clarity is what a humble address drives for. Backbenchers are not drives for. Backbenchers are not being asked to defend or attack the appointment at all. They're simply being asked to step forward and being asked to step forward and vote for a motion. That means all of us here in this House and across the country get to understand why the Prime Minister made his decision. Because if he won't come to the Dispatch Box and answer the questions to do so, maybe the very documentation that he signed and signed off will show the answers.

So I ask them on the other side of the house, do support this motion. Do stand up for that simple transparency, and let's get some clarity on what has happened and what is going to happen going forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. So Christopher Chope. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend who participates a lot more frequently than I do his opposition frequently than I do his opposition day debates. And on the basis of the quality of the debate today, I should come along more often. And I must say that the background to this, the immediate background to this, the immediate background to this is the Gus, the behaviour of Epstein and the sexual abuse and the child trafficking and all that goes with it.

And I asked the question the other day as to whether that sexual trafficking might involve not just women and girls, but also young men, and I
16:57
Christopher Chope Portrait Sir Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative)
-
-
think the, the that is unresolved at the moment. But perhaps we'll find out more in due course. But I find out more in due course. But I wish to focus in my remarks on a wish to focus in my remarks on a period going back to 1997. Madam Deputy Speaker, long before you were able to recall much about were able to recall much about politics. And I know, but that was when Mandelson was first appointed when Mandelson was first appointed by Tony Blair as the Minister without portfolio in charge of the Millennium Dome.

And the reason I recall all this is because there was a time when I was the shadow Minister for the Millennium Dome and also, for that matter, the shadow Minister for the Millennium Bug. So but I recall, well, the way in which the Mandelson enjoyed the opportunity to promote a grandiose New Labour scheme of this dome, which was, I think, going to be the fourth largest open enclosed space in in the world. It cost, in the end, I think, £750 million.

The number of visitors who attended the dome in the year 2000, which was half of what it had been estimated it was going to be, and Mandelson was really proud of this because it had a link with his grandfather, who must be turning in his grave. Herbert Morrison, a really great public servant and his grandson, has betrayed the public service in an enormous way. But Herbert Morrison was involved in the Festival of Britain, and so Mandelson thought that by being responsible for the Millennium Dome and promoting it, he would be able to, in a sense, emulate the great efforts of his grandfather.

And so the project proceeded, and it was costing an enormous amount more than had been forecast by by the Treasury or had been expected. So what happened was he was in the business of looking for sponsorship for the dome, and that was when he used agents. And I think particularly Keith Vaz, who used to be a member of this House but left in disgrace. He used Keith Vaz and the Hindujas as a means of being able to get some extra income for his dome project.

And so what happened was that the Hindujas were able to offer £1 million for a faith centre inside the dome, but of course, this didn't happen just by chance. This was linked with the fact that back in 1990, the Hinduja brothers had applied for British citizenship and had it rejected, and in 1998, with the new Labour government, they saw an opportunity to rectify that and to get their citizenship back. So. So what did they they do? They engaged a Keith Vaz.

They threw him. There were relationships with with Mandelson. And the £1 million towards the dome was forthcoming. And in return there was an acceleration of the passport application by Surrey Heath Hinduja from. He applied, I think, in the, the the middle of 98 and his his application was granted in January of 1999 and that that happened and his his, his brother's passport arrived not long after that. And there was an enormous amount of suspicion around all this. And I can remember as the shadow Minister for the dome trying to get us, I got a good story, actually, on the front page of the Sunday Times, linking Hinduja with Mandelson and the money for the dome.

And as soon as I got that, and I went off to thinking I'd be able to do the usual rounds, the whole story was closed down by Alastair Campbell and Mandelson, saying this was a whole load of rot. There was no truth in it whatsoever. We know that at the time the there was a denial by Mandelson that he had any dealings with the Home Office on behalf of the Hindujas. Subsequently they it's they seem to become evidence that there had been dealings and what happened.

And I think this is a a message that we should bear in mind. And that is what happened, was that an inquiry was set up into whether or not there had been dealings between the Secretary of State and with the Hindujas and Sir Anthony. What was his name? Sir Anthony Hammond, a distinguished retired civil servant. I think he'd been in charge of the Home Office and in in a check as Treasury solicitor, he was asked to produce a report, which he did in 2001.

That report totally exculpated any in involvement of either Mr. Vaz or of Mandelson in any wrongdoing. And then subsequent to that, a few weeks after that report had been published, which was a complete exoneration, then more papers were discovered, amazingly. And so what happened was that the inquiry by Sir Anthony Hammond was reopened in itself quite an unusual event, and the inquiry was reopened. And what happened? The consequence was, he discovered, having looked at these extra papers that had been hidden away, he discovered that there had in fact been dealings between Mandelson and actually with Michael O'Brien, who was a very distinguished and and honourable Labour member who served at that time in, in the Home Office.

And so Mandelson had consistently lied, he covered up, he behaved in a way which is totally unacceptable. And that was all that time ago, in 2002. That was when the revised report of Sir Anthony Hammond was produced. Yeah, of course, I'm grateful to the Member for allowing an intervention. He's giving a historical perspective, which we all appreciate. I'm sure it seems

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that Mr. Mandelson is a serial liar. Yes. And and this morning, would he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And and this morning, would he agree that the Prime Minister had said that Mr. Mandelson lied to him said that Mr. Mandelson lied to him and lied to him and lied to him? Who in this House, who in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House has never been lied to? Well. I don't I don't know how I'm grateful to the honourable grateful to the honourable intervention. I don't know in his professional life, I don't know how much credibility he's given to people who he knows to be serial liars. And that and that. And that is the issue. If one's on an interview panel, in a sense, that's what the Prime Minister was doing. He was interviewing his close friend for, for, for a job.

And the essence of that was he must have known he was talking to somebody
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page